ABSTRACT
Complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures have been routinely performed in non-surgical centres in the UK for more than two decades. These procedures follow strict guidelines and recommendations by the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society to ensure a more effective running of PCI programs. Even more so, expected guiding principles necessary for the safe optimisation of complex PCI procedures have also been created. An 81-year-old male was admitted with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and severely impaired left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF; 26% according to the cardiac MRI report). Angiogram findings revealed severe multiple-vessel coronary artery disease affecting the following arteries: right coronary artery (RCA), left anterior descending artery (LAD), left circumflex artery (LCx), and intermediate artery (IM). There was also severe disease in the distal left main stem (LMS) bifurcation extending to the ostia of the LAD, LCx, and IM branches. Following a multidisciplinary meeting, the patient underwent Impella-supported high-risk PCI (complex PCI) using the DK crush technique with no peri- and post-procedure complication and a significant LV function improvement (45-49%). This is the first known case of this procedure performed at the Royal Cornwall Hospital in Treliske (RCHT), Truro, Cornwall. This case report highlights that when the decision to choose between coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and PCI is not straightforward following an individualised risk-stratification scoring system analysis and in the setting of patient comorbidities, a high-risk PCI supported with the Impella device is a suitable alternative with promising short-term and long-term outcomes.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To identify gaps in national stroke guidelines that could be bridged to enhance the quality of stroke care services in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We systematically searched medical databases and websites of medical societies and contacted international organizations. Country-specific guidelines on care and control of stroke in any language published from 2010 to 2020 were eligible for inclusion. We reviewed each included guideline for coverage of four key components of stroke services (surveillance, prevention, acute care and rehabilitation). We also assessed compliance with the eight Institute of Medicine standards for clinical practice guidelines, the ease of implementation of guidelines and plans for dissemination to target audiences. FINDINGS: We reviewed 108 eligible guidelines from 47 countries, including four low-income, 24 middle-income and 19 high-income countries. Globally, fewer of the guidelines covered primary stroke prevention compared with other components of care, with none recommending surveillance. Guidelines on stroke in low- and middle-income countries fell short of the required standards for guideline development; breadth of target audience; coverage of the four components of stroke services; and adaptation to socioeconomic context. Fewer low- and middle-income country guidelines demonstrated transparency than those from high-income countries. Less than a quarter of guidelines encompassed detailed implementation plans and socioeconomic considerations. CONCLUSION: Guidelines on stroke in low- and middle-income countries need to be developed in conjunction with a wider category of health-care providers and stakeholders, with a full spectrum of translatable, context-appropriate interventions.
