Determinants of clinical presentation on outcomes in older patients with myocardial infarction.

AIM: Myocardial infarction without chest pain misleads the clinician, resulting in a diagnosis delay and an increase of mortality. The main objective of the present study was to determine the risk factors of atypical presentation in older patients with myocardial infarction. METHODS: All consecutive patients aged ≥75 years presenting with myocardial infarction and hospitalized in the cardiology intensive care unit were included in the present prospective multicenter observational study. All patients benefited from both specialized cardiac management and geriatric assessment. RESULTS: A total of 215 consecutive patients were included. The mean age was 85 ± 6 years. A total of 142 patients (66%) had a typical presentation (i.e. chest pain) and 73 patients (34%) had an atypical clinical presentation (i.e. no chest pain). A total of 29 (13.5%) patients died within 30 days of the index hospitalization. Higher Cumulative Illness Rating Score-Geriatric severity index score (P = 0.019) and initial atrial fibrillation (P = 0.022) were predictive of 30-day all-cause mortality. Typical presentation (P = 0.010) was a protective factor of 30-day all-cause mortality. A Cumulative Illness Rating Score for Geriatrics total score increase (P = 0.0003) and residing in a nursing home (P = 0.024) emerged as independent risk factors for atypical presentation. CONCLUSIONS: In "real-life" elderly patients, comorbidities influence the prognosis of myocardial infarction, but also clinical presentation. Identification of patients at risk of atypical presentation; that is, patients with multiple comorbid conditions, might help refine the prognostic value in older patients with myocardial infarction. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2018; 18: 1591-1596.

Open issues in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Part 2: procedural issues and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

This article provides an overview on procedure-related issues and uncertainties in outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The different access sites and how to select them in an individual patient are discussed. Also, the occurrence and potential predictors of aortic regurgitation (AR) after TAVI are addressed. The different methods to quantify AR are reviewed, and it appears that accurate and reproducible quantification is suboptimal. Complications such as prosthesis-patient mismatch and conduction abnormalities (and need for permanent pacemaker) are discussed, as well as cerebrovascular events, which emphasize the development of optimal anti-coagulative strategies. Finally, recent registries have shown the adoption of TAVI in the real world, but longer follow-up studies are needed to evaluate the outcome (but also prosthesis durability). Additionally, future studies are briefly discussed, which will address the use of TAVI in pure AR and lower-risk patients.

Open issues in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Part 1: patient selection and treatment strategy for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

An exponential increase in the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis has been witnessed over the recent years. The current article reviews different areas of uncertainty related to patient selection. The use and limitations of risk scores are addressed, followed by an extensive discussion on the value of three-dimensional imaging for prosthesis sizing and the assessment of complex valve anatomy such as degenerated bicuspid valves. The uncertainty about valvular stenosis severity in patients with a mismatch between the transvalvular gradient and the aortic valve area, and how integrated use of echocardiography and computed tomographic imaging may help, is also addressed. Finally, patients referred for TAVI may have concomitant mitral regurgitation and/or coronary artery disease and the management of these patients is discussed.

Long-term follow-up of patients with sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of bare-metal in-stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND: Limited data is available on the long-term outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) implantation for in-stent restenosis. METHODS: In 3 centers, consecutive patients (n=100) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for in-stent restenosis (n=110) were treated with SES: 28 lesions were focal, 40 diffuse, 17 proliferative, and 15 totally occluded (reference vessel diameter: 3.0+/-0.2 mm, lesion length: 13.8+/-5.7 mm). RESULTS: SES implantation was successful in all patients. The mean follow-up was 50+/-12 months. The main univariate predictive factor of definite (4%) or probable (4%) SES thrombosis was revascularization without SES in a non-target site during the initial procedure (p<0.01). Repeated target lesion revascularization (TLR) was performed in 8 patients (8%) at 1 year, in 10 patients (10%) at 4 years. A cardiac event related to the SES occurred in 14 patients (14%) at one year, 17 patients (17%) at 4 years, and were associated with unstable angina (p<0.05), multivessel disease (p<0.02) and revascularization without SES in another site of the target vessel during the initial procedure (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: SESs are effective at 4 years in the treatment of high risk patients with complex in-stent restenosis, with a low risk of TLR but a high risk of stent thrombosis. Most of cardiac events related to the target vessel occur during the first year, and are associated to a revascularization without SES in another site during the first procedure.

Cardiac events after low osmolar ionic or isosmolar nonionic contrast media utilization in the current era of coronary angioplasty.

OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to compare the isosmolar nonionic dimer iodixanol and the low osmolar ionic agent ioxaglate in the current era of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), using clopidogrel, enoxaparine, direct stenting, and drug eluting stent. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested an association between thrombus-related events and type of contrast media. METHODS: Our prospective single-center study included 498 consecutive patients who were assigned to receive either iodixanol (n = 231) or ioxaglate (n = 267). The primary endpoint was the cumulative rate of in-hospital major adverse clinical events (MACE). A secondary endpoint was the rate of angiographic or procedural complications. RESULTS: Clinical and angiographic baseline characteristics and procedural data were similar in the 2 groups. A peak anti-Xa > 0.5 IU/ml was obtained in 97% in both groups. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in 42% of patients. Coronary stenting was performed in 91% of patients, with direct stenting in 70%, and drug-eluting stent in 28% of patients. In-hospital MACE was more frequent in patients receiving iodixanol compared with those receiving ioxaglate (4.8% vs. 0.3%, P < 0.005). This difference was mainly related to the appearance of a large thrombus during PCI (6% with iodixanol vs. 0.3% with ioxaglate, P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of in-hospital MACE were use of iodixanol (P < 0.01), the higher number of stent used (P < 0.008), bifurcation/ostial lesion (P < 0.01), and balloon dilation before stenting (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our study reflecting the current era of PCI, thrombus-related events are more frequent with the isosmolar nonionic dimer iodixanol than with the low osmolar ionic agent ioxaglate.

Predictive factors of cardiac events after implantation of sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of in-stent restenosis.

BACKGROUND: The factors associated with recurrent restenosis after SES implantation for in-stent restenosis are unknown. This study aimed to assess the clinical outcome and to analyse predictive factors of cardiac events in patients with in-stent restenosis treated with Sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). METHODS: In 3 centers, consecutive patients (n = 100) with elective indication to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for in-stent restenosis (n = 110) were treated with SES: 28 lesions were focal, 40 diffuse, 17 proliferative, and 15 showed total occlusion. RESULTS: SES implantation was successful in all patients, without complication during the first hospital stay. The mean follow-up was 15 (10-24) months. A cardiac event related to the target vessel occurred in 24 (24%) patients, and was associated with dialysis status (p < 0.05), lower ejection fraction (p < 0.05) and revascularization without SES in another site (p < 0.0001). A cardiac event related to the SES occurred in 11 (11%) patients, secondary to an acute or sub-acute thrombosis of the SES (2%), to a late occlusion of the target vessel (4%) or to a non-occlusive restenosis of the SES (5%), and was associated with unstable angina (p < 0.01), multivessel disease (p < 0.03) and revascularization without SES in another site (p < 0.03). No cardiac event related to the SES occurred in patients with direct stenting. Target lesion revascularization for in-SES restenosis or occlusion of the target vessel was performed in 7 (7%) patients, and was associated with unstable angina (p < 0.01) and revascularization without SES in another site (p < 0.01). Target vessel revascularization was needed in 20 patients (20%), related to dialysis status (p < 0.01) and a revascularization without SES in another site (p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: SESs are effective in the treatment of high risk patients with complex in-stent restenosis. Most of cardiac events during follow-up are related to a revascularization without SES in another site.