VDI pacing with temporary esophageal and transvenous pacemaker leads to treat post-cardiac surgery cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative atrio-ventricular (AV) block after cardiac surgery is not uncommon in high-risk patients. CASE PRESENTATION: Our case highlights the management of a 62-year-old female with cardiogenic shock post-cardiac surgery with concomitant complete heart block. With VVI pacing proving ineffective, it was postulated that the patient may benefit hemodynamically from AV sequential pacing, re-establishing her atrial kick. We describe a novel technique of attaching a temporary pacemaker wire to an orogastric tube to sense atrial p-waves and pace the ventricle transvenously to perform AV sequential pacing. This was done temporarily to stabilize the patient's hemodynamic status while awaiting a permanent pacemaker implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In hemodynamically unstable post-cardiac surgery patients with complete heart block in whom VVI pacing fails to improve their clinical status, clinicians should consider VDI pacing with an orogastric atrial sensing pacemaker lead, in consultation with the cardiac surgeon and the electrophysiology team. Of note, the patient needs to have underlying organized atrial activity for this setup to work.

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

Importance: Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. Objective: To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. Results: Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Histoplasma Endocarditis Diagnosed by Thrombus Aspiration.

Negative cultures in endocarditis often lead to delays in targeted life-saving therapies. We present the case of a 68-year-old man who presented with culture-negative endocarditis, which was complicated by coronary embolization resulting in anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Aspiration thrombectomy led to the diagnosis of fungal endocarditis, one of the most serious causes of culture-negative presentation.

Off-pump Versus On-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: Graft Patency Assessment With Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: A large multicenter randomized trial (RCT) is needed to assess off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patency when performed by skilled surgeons. This prospective multicenter randomized pilot study compares graft patency after on-pump and off-pump techniques and addresses the feasibility of such an RCT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients were prospectively recruited for ≥64-slice computed tomography angiography graft patency assessment 1 year after randomization to off-pump or on-pump CABG. Blinded assessment of graft patency was performed, and the results were categorized as normal, ≥50% stenosis, or occlusion. A multilevel model with random effects on the patient was used to account for correlation of results in patients with multiple grafts. RESULTS: A total of 157 patients (3 centers, 84 off-pump and 73 on-pump patients, 512 grafts, assessability rate 98.4%) were included. Patency index (% nonoccluded grafts) was 89% for the off-pump technique and 95% for the on-pump technique (P=0.09). Patency was similar for arterial and vein grafts (both 92%; P=0.88), as well as between target territories (89% to 94%; P=0.53). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, 1-year graft patency results after off-pump and on-pump surgery were similar. This feasibility trial demonstrates that a large multicenter RCT to compare CABG patency after on-pump with that after off-pump techniques is feasible and can be reliably undertaken using computed tomography angiography.

Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) placement in high-risk patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery (CABG). The primary outcome was hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were IABP-related complications (bleeding, leg ischemia, aortic dissection). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane registry of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies that fulfilled our a priori inclusion criteria. Eligibility decisions, relevance, study validity, and data extraction were performed in duplicate using pre-specified criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model. RESULTS: Ten publications fulfilled our eligibility criteria, of which four were RCTs and six were cohort studies with controls. There were statistical as well as clinical heterogeneity among included studies. A total of 1034 patients received preoperative IABP and 1329 did not receive preoperative IABP. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for hospital mortality in patients treated with preoperative IABP was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.21-0.82, p = 0.01). The number needed to treat was 17. The pooled OR for hospital mortality from randomized trials was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06-0.57, p = 0.003) and from cohort studies was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.24-1.2, p = 0.13). Overall, 3.7% (13 of 349) of patients who received preoperative IABP developed either limb ischemia or haematoma at the IABP insertion site, and most of these complications improved after discontinuation of IABP. CONCLUSION: Evidence from this meta-analysis support the use of preoperative IABP in high-risk patients to reduce hospital mortality.

Cost comparison of four revascularisation procedures for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: An economic evaluation was performed, using modelling techniques, to compare 1-year total costs of four revascularisation procedures in patients with multivessel disease: on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); off-pump CABG; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents (BMS); and PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: Clinical data were derived from four randomised clinical trials comparing CABG versus PCI, as well as from literature reviews. Resource use and unit cost estimates were modelled to reflect current Canadian practice. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that 1 year after the initial revascularisation, PCI with BMS is the least costly procedure, followed by off-pump CABG, PCI with DES and on-pump CABG. DES became the most costly procedure if 3.5 or more DES were used or if staged PCI was performed.