Outcomes of rotational atherectomy versus orbital atherectomy for the treatment of heavily calcified coronary stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal approach to deal with severe coronary artery calcification (CAC) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains ill-defined. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published studies comparing Orbital versus Rotational Atherectomy in patients undergoing PCI. RESULTS: Eight observational studies were included in the analysis. Overall, there were no significant differences in Major-adverse-cardiac-events/MACE (OR: 0.81, CI: 0.63-1.05, p = .11), myocardial-infarction/MI (OR: 0.75, CI: 0.56-1.00, p = .05), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.82, CI: 0.25-2.64, p = .73) or Target-vessel-revascularization/TVR (OR: 0.72, CI: 0.38-1.36, p = .31). However, OA was associated with lower long-term MACE (1-year), (OR: 0.66, CI: 0.44-0.99, p = .04), long-term TVR (OR: 0.40, CI: 0.18-0.89, p = .03), and short-term MI (in-hospital and 30-day) (OR: 0.64, CI: 0.44-0.94, p = .02). OA was associated with more coronary artery dissections (OR: 2.61, CI: 1.38-4.92, p = .003) and device-related coronary perforations (OR: 2.79, CI: 1.08-7.19, p = .03). There were no differences in cardiac tamponade (OR: 1.78, CI: 0.37-8.69, p = .47). OA was noted to have significantly lower fluoroscopy time (MD: -3.96 min, CI: -7.67, -0.25; p = .04) compared to RA. No significant difference was noted in terms of contrast volume between the two groups (OR: -4.35 ml, CI: -14.52, 23.22; p = .65). CONCLUSION: Although there was no difference in overall MACE, MI, all-cause mortality and TVR, OA was associated with lower long-term MACE and short-term MI. OA is associated with lower fluoroscopy time but higher rates of coronary artery dissection and coronary perforation.

Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies comparing outcomes between culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CV-PCI) versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis investigates the optimal approach for management of these patients considering recently published data. METHODS: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched for all clinical studies published until May 1, 2018, which compared outcomes in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Studies comparing CV-PCI versus MV-PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were screened for inclusion in final analysis. The primary end point was in-hospital/30 day mortality. Secondary endpoints included long term (>6 months) mortality, renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) were computed and p values <0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Patient who underwent CV-PCI had significantly lower short-term mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.61-0.87, p = 0.0005), and lower odds of severe renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.59-0.98, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term mortality, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction between two groups. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed lower short-term mortality and decreased odds of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy with CV-PCI compared to MV-PCI. However, subgroup analysis including studies exclusively assessing STEMI patients revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long term results.

Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale in Patients with Cryptogenic Stroke - An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The ideal treatment strategy for patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO) is not yet clear. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing transcatheter PFO closure with medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke to prevent recurrent ischemic stroke showed mixed results. This meta-analysis aims to compare rates of recurrent stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) and all-cause mortality with PFO closure and medical therapy vs. medical therapy alone. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies published through June 2018, comparing PFO closure plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone. Six RCTs (n = 3750) comparing PFO closure with medical therapy were included in the analysis. End points were recurrent stroke, TIA and all-cause mortality. The odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed and p < 0.05 was considered as a level of significance. RESULTS: A total of 1889 patients were assigned to PFO closure plus medical therapy and 1861 patients were assigned to medical therapy only. Risk of recurrent stroke was significantly lower in the PFO closure plus medical therapy group compared to medical therapy alone. (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33-0.67, p < 0.0001). Rate of TIA was similar between the two groups (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52-1.14), p = 0.18). There was no difference in all-cause mortality between two groups (OR 0.73, CI 0.33-1.58, p = 0.42). Patients undergoing PFO closure were more likely to develop transient atrial fibrillation than medical therapy alone (OR: 5.85; CI: 3.06-11.18, p ≤0.0001) whereas the risk of bleeding was similar between the groups (OR: 0.93; CI: 0.55-1.57, p = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that transcatheter closure of PFO plus medical therapy is superior to medical therapy alone for the prevention of recurrent cryptogenic stroke. However, PFO closure in these patients has not been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent TIA or all-cause mortality. There is a higher rate of transient atrial fibrillation post PFO closure device placement, the long-term effects of which have yet to be studied.

Germ cell tumor and Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy: A treatment dilemma.

Germ cell tumors (GCT) are uncommon malignancies in adult males and comprise less than 1% of male cancers. Due to highly curative nature and productive life years gained after treatment; reduction of chemotherapy related toxicities becomes vital. Cisplatin is the backbone of GCT chemotherapy, & is related to myocardial injury, thromboembolism & vasculitis. Though it should not be replaced with Carboplatin, however in certain circumstances, its use maybe unsafe; especially in cases when patient have prior myocardial infarction. We report a case of Takotsubo cardiomyopathy (TCM)secondary to GCT diagnosis in a young male. This patient presented with symptoms of myocardial infarction however, coronary angiography was normal and a diagnosis of TCM was made. Though, it is rare but a unique challenge, as whether Cisplatin use would be safe in this particular scenario? On one hand patient had stress related myocardial injury while he was also at risk of further Cisplatin induced complications. There are no clear cut guidelines, so after informed consent his treatment regimen was modified to EC (Etoposide/Carboplatin) instead of EP (Etoposide/Cisplatin). Patient has completed 4.6 years of follow-up without any evidence of relapse. We suggest informed decisions and to weigh the pros and cons of using an inferior regimen, in order to achieve same long term prognosis while preventing any acute complications, in younger patients with curable cancers.