Early Post-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Chest Pain: A Nationwide Survey on Interventional Cardiologists' Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Early post-percutaneous coronary intervention chest pain (EPPCP) appears to be a common clinical phenomenon. EPPCP has not been fully explained or studied in the literature despite the abundance of clinical trials on percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The objective of this questionnaire-based survey is to assess the current perception of EPPCP among practicing interventional cardiologists nationwide. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was designed utilizing the Survey Monkey tool to address the perceptions and current practices regarding key aspects of EPPCP among interventional cardiologists. The survey was sent to the interventional cardiologists via email. RESULTS: The survey questionnaire regarding EPPCP was provided to 2615 practicing interventional cardiologists and resulted in 623 total survey responses, with 503 of those respondents completing all eight survey questions. A total of 50.2% of the interventional cardiologists perceive that the incidence of EPPCP is 5-10%, and 57.5% consider that repeat angiography or PCI is rarely needed (1 in 1000 cases). A total of 47.1% of the participants think that EPPCP is due to transient microvascular dysfunction, while 39% perceive it as a different entity requiring a different approach. When asked about developing a standardized labeling for the phenomenon of EPPCP, 34.8% of responders indicated that they believe EPPCP should be labeled as a benign form of chest pain/angina, and 28% preferred to describe EPPCP in non-standardized terms. Among interventional cardiologists, 80% thought that the treatment of this entity is a combination of reassurance and vasodilators and, without ischemic ECG changes, medical management is appropriate. CONCLUSION: A total of 72% of interventional cardiologists in our survey preferred to label EPPCP as standard nomenclature to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, patients and families in a consistent way. There is a diversity of opinion regarding EPPCP, no standard nomenclature, and no guideline to standardize practice. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiological mechanisms, optimal management strategies, prognostic implications, and clinical reporting of EPPCP.

Contemporary Pharmacologic Management of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Review.

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is defined as the presence of typical symptoms of heart failure (HF) and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%. HFrEF patients constitute approximately 50% of all patients with clinical HF. Despite breakthrough discoveries and advances in the pharmacologic management of HF, HFrEF patients continue to pose a significant economic burden due to a progressive disease characterized by recurrent hospitalizations and need for advanced therapy. Although there are effective, guideline-directed medical therapies for patients with HFrEF, a significant proportion of these patients are either not on appropriate medications' combination or on optimal tolerable medications' doses. Since the morbidity and mortality benefits of some of the pharmacologic therapies are dose-dependent, optimal medical therapy is required to impact the burden of disease, quality of life, prognosis, and to curb health care expenditure. In this review, we summarize landmark trials that have impacted the management of HF and we review contemporary pharmacologic management of patients with HFrEF. We also provide insight on general considerations in the management of HFrEF in specific populations. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Medline and Cochrane library for relevant articles published until April 2019 using the following key words "heart failure", "management", "treatment", "device therapy", "reduced ejection fraction", "guidelines", "guideline directed medical therapy", "trials" either by itself or in combination. We also utilized the cardiology trials portal to identify trials related to heart failure. We reviewed guidelines, full articles, review articles and clinical trials and focused on the pharmacologic management of HFrEF.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the latest data on unprotected left main (ULM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, with a focus on the NOBLE and EXCEL trials. RECENT FINDINGS: In EXCEL trial, the primary endpoint at 3 years was 15.4% in the PCI group and 14.7% in the CABG group (p = 0.02 for non-inferiority of PCI versus CABG). In NOBLE, the primary endpoint at 5 years was 28% and 18% for PCI and CABG, respectively (HR 1.51, CI 1.13-2.0, which did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of PCI to CABG; p for superiority of CABG was 0.0044). Higher repeat revascularization and non-procedural myocardial infarction were noted in PCI group but there was no difference in all-cause or cardiac mortality between the two groups. A heart team approach with appropriate patient selection, careful assessment of LM lesions, and meticulous procedural technique makes PCI a valid alternative to CABG for ULM stenosis.

Deglutition Syncope: Two Case Reports Attributed to Vagal Hyperactivity.

Deglutition syncope is a relatively rare cause of syncope that belongs to the category of neurally mediated reflex syncopal syndromes. The phenomenon is related to vagal reflex in context to deglutition causing atrioventricular block and acute reduction in cardiac output leading to dizziness or syncope. We present case series of two cases of deglutition syncope, of which first was managed medically and second with pacemaker implantation.