Search

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the safety of selective intracoronary hypothermia during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background: Selective intracoronary hypothermia is a novel treatment designed to reduce myocardial reperfusion injury and is currently being investigated in the ongoing randomized controlled EURO-ICE (European Intracoronary Cooling Evaluation in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial (NCT03447834). Data on the safety of such a procedure during PPCI are still limited. Methods: The first 50 patients with anterior STEMI treated with selective intracoronary hypothermia during PPCI were included in this analysis and compared for safety with the first 50 patients randomized to the control group undergoing standard PPCI. In-hospital mortality, occurrence of rhythm or conduction disturbances, stent thrombosis, onset of heart failure during the procedure, and subsequent hospital admission were assessed. Results: In-hospital mortality was 0%. One patient in both groups developed cardiogenic shock. Atrial fibrillation occurred in 0 and 3 patients (P = 0.24), and ventricular fibrillation occurred in 5 and 3 patients (P = 0.72) in the intracoronary hypothermia group and control group, respectively. Stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients in the intracoronary hypothermia group; 1 instance was intraprocedural, and the other occurred following interruption of dual-antiplatelet therapy consequent to an intracranial hemorrhage 6 days after enrollment. No stent thrombosis was observed in the control group (P = 0.50). Conclusions: Selective intracoronary hypothermia during PPCI in patients with anterior STEMI can be implemented within the routine of PPCI and seems to be safe. The final safety results will be reported at the end of the trial.

During the last two decades, there has been a sharp increase in both interest and knowledge about the coronary microcirculation. Since these small vessels are not visible by the human eye, physiologic measurements should be used to characterize their function. The invasive methods presently used (coronary flow reserve (CFR) and index of microvascular resistance (IMR)) are operator-dependent and mandate the use of adenosine to induce hyperemia. In recent years, a new thermodilution-based method for measurement of absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance has been proposed and initial procedural problems have been overcome. Presently, the technique is easy to perform using the Rayflow infusion catheter and the Coroventis software. The method is accurate, reproducible, and completely operator-independent. This method has been validated noninvasively against the current golden standard for flow assessment: Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography (PET-CT). In addition, absolute flow and resistance measurements have proved to be safe, both periprocedurally and at long-term follow-up. With an increasing number of studies being performed, this method has great potential for better understanding and quantification of microvascular disease.

[Background] To date, no specific drug-eluting stent (DES) has fully proven its superiority over others in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention., [Objectives] The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery stents in STEMI patients in a patient-level network meta-analysis. [Methods] Eligible studies were dedicated randomized controlled trials comparing different stents in STEMI patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with at least 12 months of clinical follow-up. Of 19 studies identified from the published data, individual patient data were collected in 15 studies with 10,979 patients representing 87.7% of patients in the overall network of evidence. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or target lesion revascularization. [Results] Overall, 8,487 (77.3%) of 10,979 STEMI patients were male and the mean age was 60.7 years. At a median follow-up of 3 years, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), patients treated with paclitaxel-, sirolimus-, everolimus-, or biolimus-eluting stents had a significantly lower risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs]: 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63 to 0.88], 0.65 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.85], 0.70 [95% CI: 0.53 to 0.91], and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88], respectively). The risk of primary endpoint was not different between patients treated with BMS and zotarolimus-eluting stents (adjusted HR: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.51 to 1.38]). Among patients treated with DES, no significant difference in the risk of the primary outcome was demonstrated. Treatment with second-generation DES was associated with significantly lower risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis compared with BMS (adjusted HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89]) and first-generation DES (adjusted HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88]). [Conclusions] In STEMI patients, DES were superior to BMS with respect to long-term efficacy. No difference in long-term efficacy and safety was observed among specific DES. Second-generation were superior to first-generation DES in reducing stent thrombosis. (Clinical Outcomes After Primary Percutaneou

Aims: Echocardiography and tomographic imaging have documented dynamic changes in aortic stenosis (AS) geometry and severity during both the cardiac cycle and stress-induced increases in cardiac output. However, corresponding pressure gradient vs. flow relationships have not been described. Methods and results: We recruited 16 routine transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVI's) for graded dobutamine infusions both before and after implantation; 0.014″ pressure wires in the aorta and left ventricle (LV) continuously measured the transvalvular pressure gradient (ΔP) while a pulmonary artery catheter regularly assessed cardiac output by thermodilution. Before TAVI, ΔP did not display a consistent relationship with transvalvular flow (Q). Neither linear resistor (median R2 0.16) nor quadratic orifice (median R2 < 0.01) models at rest predicted stress observations; the severely stenotic valve behaved like a combination. The unitless ratio of aortic to left ventricular pressures during systolic ejection under stress conditions correlated best with post-TAVI flow improvement. After TAVI, a highly linear relationship (median R2 0.96) indicated a valid valve resistance. Conclusion: Pressure loss vs. flow curves offer a fundamental fluid dynamic synthesis for describing aortic valve pathophysiology. Severe AS does not consistently behave like an orifice (as suggested by Gorlin) or a resistor, whereas TAVI devices behave like a pure resistor. During peak dobutamine, the ratio of aortic to left ventricular pressures during systolic ejection provides a 'fractional flow reserve' of the aortic valve that closely approximates the complex, changing fluid dynamics. Because resting assessment cannot reliably predict stress haemodynamics, 'valvular fractional flow' warrants study to explain exertional symptoms in patients with only moderate AS at rest.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the hyperaemic effect of a single bolus regadenoson injection to a central venous adenosine infusion for inducing hyperaemia in the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR).\n\nMETHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred patients scheduled for FFR measurement were enrolled. FFR was first measured by IV adenosine (140 µg/kg/min), thereafter by IV bolus regadenoson injection (400 µg), followed by another measurement by IV adenosine and bolus injection of regadenoson. The regadenoson injections were randomised to central or peripheral intravenous. Hyperaemic response and duration of steady state maximum hyperaemia were studied, central versus peripheral venous regadenoson injections were compared, and safety and reproducibility of repeated injections were investigated. Mean age was 66±8 years, 75% of the patients were male. The target stenosis was located in the LM, LAD, LCX, and RCA in 7%, 54%, 20% and 19%, respectively. There was no difference in FFR measured by adenosine or by regadenoson (ΔFFR=0.00±0.01, r=0.994, p, AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the hyperaemic effect of a single bolus regadenoson injection to a central venous adenosine infusion for inducing hyperaemia in the measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred patients scheduled for FFR measurement were enrolled. FFR was first measured by IV adenosine (140 µg/kg/min), thereafter by IV bolus regadenoson injection (400 µg), followed by another measurement by IV adenosine and bolus injection of regadenoson. The regadenoson injections were randomised to central or peripheral intravenous. Hyperaemic response and duration of steady state maximum hyperaemia were studied, central versus peripheral venous regadenoson injections were compared, and safety and reproducibility of repeated injections were investigated. Mean age was 66±8 years, 75% of the patients were male. The target stenosis was located in the LM, LAD, LCX, and RCA in 7%, 54%, 20% and 19%, respectively. There was no difference in FFR measured by adenosine or by regadenoson (ΔFFR=0.00±0.01, r=0.994, p<0.001). Duration of maximum hyperaemia after regadenoson was variable (10-600 s). No serious side effects of either drug were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Maximum coronary hyperaemia can be achieved easily, rapidly, and safely by one single intravenous bolus of regadenoson administered either centrally or peripherally. Repeated regadenoson injections are safe. The hyperaemic plateau is variable.