Search

Aortic valve disease is a growing cause of mortality and morbidity, especially in developed countries. Whereas medical therapy is associated with an ominous prognosis, since the 1970s, surgical valve replacement has represented a standard therapy for fit patients. Indeed, this approach is safe and feasible in younger patients without comorbidities. However, in unfit patients, surgery may be associated with a very high risk. The advent of transcatheter valve replacement techniques, by means of percutaneous or transapical approaches, has been recently introduced into mainstream clinical practice and is likely to radically change the treatment of aortic valve disease. At present, further data are needed to thoroughly appraise the long-term risk-benefit balance of transcatheter valve replacement techniques. For this reason, it can only be considered for high surgical risk patients, but early results are so promising that in the future, transcatheter aortic valve implantation could became the first therapeutic choice, even for low-risk patients.

Background: Congestive heart failure (CHF) represents an emerging problem in industrialized countries: it continues to be diagnosed at high rates and has an decreased survival time, raising new problems, such as the need of an adequate medical service organization and resource expenditure. Aim of this analysis was a quantitative evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic resource use for CHF in outpatient departments in Piedmont, Italy., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional observational study, based on a two-month data collection in 12 outpatient departments dedicated to congestive heart failure. Information was obtained on each patient using a specific anonymous data collection form., Results: We obtained and analyzed for the study 547forms. Mean patient age was 66.1 years, mean ejection fraction was 36.6%. Coronary artery disease accounted for 34.6% of congestive heart failure cases, followed by idiopathic etiology (26.4%). Main comorbidities were diabetes (22.3%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (17.7%). Sixty-nine% of patients received a medical treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, 72.6% with beta-blockers, 48.8% with aldosterone antagonists. As far as diagnostic resource use during a six-month period preceeding observation, 46.8% of patients underwent echocardiographic examination, 9.9% Holter ECG, 6.0% coronary angiography. Therapy was more often increased in patients who underwent an instrumental evaluation during the preceeding six-month period., Conclusions: Data suggests that in Piedmont outpatients with chronic heart failure receive a high drug prescription level and a small number of instrumental evaluations, as suggested in main international guidelines.

Aims: There is uncertainty on the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). We thus performed a systematic review of studies reporting on PCI in LVD., Methods and Results: Pertinent studies were searched in PubMed, and included if reporting on >/=30 patients, with ejection fraction < 50%, and prevalently (>60%) treated with stents. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at the longest follow-up. Outcomes were pooled with random-effect methods (95% confidence intervals). We retrieved 11 studies including 1,284 patients with ejection fraction <50% (specifically <40% in 1,033 and <30% in 211). All studies but one reported on bare-metal stenting only. In-hospital MACE occurred in 5% (3-6), with death in 2% (1-3), myocardial infarction in 3% (2-4), and repeat revascularisation in 1% (0-2). After a median of 18 months, MACE occurred in 33% (30-36), with death in 11% (9-13), myocardial infarction in 7% (6-9), and repeat revascularisation in 15% (13-18). Meta-regression suggested the beneficial impact of drug-eluting stents on MACE (p=0.030)., Conclusions: Currently available data support the adoption of percutaneous revascularisation in carefully selected patients with LVD. While event attrition remains substantial at long-term follow-up, drug-eluting stents hold the promise of significantly improving event-free and overall survival.

Background: Studies focusing on short- and mid-term follow up support the beneficial role of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR), yet no long-term safety and/or efficacy data are available., Methods: Patients with ISR following bare-metal stenting (BMS) and treated with SES were prospectively studied. Baseline, procedural, and in-hospital data were appraised. The primary endpoint was the rate of major cardiovascular events (MACE) at long-term follow up (>9 months). Secondary endpoints were the individual contributors to MACE., Results: A total of 180 SES were implanted to treat 138 consecutive patients. Procedural success was achieved in all patients without in-hospital death, acute stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent coronary artery bypass. During follow up, MACE occurred in 5.8% of patients at 6 months, 14.3% at 12 months, and 25% at 24 months. Specifically, all-cause mortality was 1.7% at 6 months, 3.5% at 12 months, and 4.8% at 24 months, for a total of 5 deaths. Target vessel revascularization occurred at 6, 12, and 24 months in 4.2%, 11.2%, and 15.9% of patients, respectively, while target lesion revascularization (TLR) alone accounted for 3.4% at 6 months, 9.6% at 12 months, and 11% at 24 months. Three case of myocardial infarction occurred during follow up (2.2%), without any surgical revascularization or stent thrombosis., Conclusions: Treatment of ISR with SES appears safe and effective, even if a 10% annual rate of MACE can be expected, with a sizable portion of these due to apparently nontarget lesion events.

Background: Patients with myocardial infarction without angiographically significant coronary artery lesions are considered, as a whole, to have a better prognosis. Different degrees of coronary involvement, within this wide group, may portend different degrees of risk. The aim of this study was to assess which clinical and angiographic covariates are more useful in defining the individual prognosis. METHLODS: We prospectively followed 53 consecutive patients admitted to our coronary care unit between 1985-1990 with myocardial infarction and a culprit lesion causing < or = 50% angiographic luminal narrowing., Results: Patients with normal angiograms (group A) were compared to those with minor parietal irregularities (group B) or discrete (< or = 50%) stenosis (group C). Group A patients were younger, had a lower peak creatine kinase release, and a higher ejection fraction. After a median follow up of 125 +/- 32 months, group A patients had a 100% 10-year survival compared to 77 and 58% for group B and group C patients respectively (p = 0.01). At univariate analysis, ischemic events correlated with the severity of coronary lesions (while group A patients had no ischemic events at follow-up, events occurred in 46 and 50% of group B and C patients respectively; p = 0.003) and with ejection fraction, that was lower in patients with events (56.0 +/- 17 vs 67 +/- 11%, p = 0.006). Cardiac death, too, correlated with the type of coronary lesions (p = 0.03) and with lower ejection fraction (p = 0.004). By means of multivariate analysis, on the contrary, only the vessel morphology was predictive of ischemic events at follow-up (p = 0.02), while the only significant predictor of death was ejection fraction (p = 0.0012)., Conclusions: Patients with myocardial infarction and strictly normal vessels have very few ischemic events at follow-up, and may be distinguished from both patients with non-significant lesions as well as those with minor angiographic irregularities. On the other hand, cardiac mortality correlates strongly and independently with a depressed ventricular function.

Background: Successful reperfusion therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves survival. Indeed, after AMI myocardial dysfunction may be reversible (hibernating or stunned myocardium). Low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography (LDDSE) provides us with the possibility of evaluating viable myocardial segments, while myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) allows the study of the microcirculation in the same myocardial areas. The aim of our study was to compare LDDSE and MCE, in the prediction of the recovery of segments in patients with AMI who were submitted to primary coronary angioplasty (PTCA)., Methods: We studied 14 patients with AMI. Both LDDSE and MCE with Levovist were performed after primary PTCA. The viability gold standard was a recovery of contractility detected at echocardiography 2 months later., Results: For LDDSE, the sensitivity was 91%, the specificity 71% and the positive and negative predictive values were 93 and 64% respectively. For MCE, the sensitivity was 94%, the specificity 44%, the positive predictive value 89%, and the negative predictive value 59%. Two tests agreed in 81% of the cases. Stress echocardiography and contrast echocardiography agreed in 81% of cases., Conclusions: LDDSE has a very good positive accuracy, it has an acceptable negative predictive value and is relatively cheap. On the other hand, MCE has a good positive accuracy, but a low negative accuracy and carries a high cost. The integration of these two tests, which are too expensive in clinical practice, could improve our comprehension of the post-PTCA pathophysiology.