Predictors of Adverse Outcome in High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Interventions Patients.

BACKGROUND: Identifying high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients is challenging. We aimed to evaluate which high-risk patients are prone to adverse events. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study including consecutive high-risk PCIs from 2005 to 2018 in a large tertiary medical centre. Patients with unprotected left main (LM) disease, last patent coronary vessel, or 3-vessel coronary artery disease with left ventricular ejection fraction < 35% were included. A predictive 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) score consisting of any myocardial infarction, all-cause death, or target-vessel revascularisation was constructed. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2018, a total of 1890 patients who underwent PCI met the predefined high-risk PCI criteria. Mortality rate was 8.8% at 30 days and 20.7% at 1 year, and 30-day MACE rate was 14.2% and 33.5% at 1 year. Predictors of short-term MACE were New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) 4 (hazard ratio [HR] 6.65; P < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mm Hg (HR 4.93; P < 0.001), creatinine > 1.3 mg/dL (HR 3.57; P < 0.001), hemoglobin < 11.0 g/dL (HR 3.07; P < 0.001), pulmonary artery systolic pressure > 50 mm Hg (HR 2.06; P < 0.001), atrial fibrillation (HR 1.74; P < 0.001), and LM disease (HR 2.04; P < 0.001) or last patent vessel (HR 1.70; P = 0.002). A score constructed from these parameters reached a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 81% with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92 for MACE and 0.94 with 89% sensitivity and 87% specificity for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Specific features such as LM lesion or last patent conduit, pulmonary hypertension, atrial fibrillation, anemia, and renal failure, along with low SBP and NYHA 4, aid risk stratification and consideration of further treatment measures.

Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock (from the German ALKK PCI Registry).

Early revascularization therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). Data from consecutive patients with AMI and CS treated with PCI enrolled into the prospective Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte-PCI registry were centrally collected and analyzed. Patients were divided into 4 groups with PCI for left main (LM), 1-vessel, 2-vessel, and 3-vessel diseases. Patients' characteristics, procedural features, antithrombotic therapies, and in-hospital complications were compared between the 4 groups. Between 2010 and 2015 a total of 2,348 consecutive patients with AMI and CS were treated by PCI in 51 hospitals, 295 for LM (15 for protected, 280 for unprotected) and single-vessel (n = 491), 2-vessel (n = 524), and 3-vessel disease (n = 1,038). Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 3 patency of the culprit lesion after PCI was 84.3%, 84.0%, 80.8%, and 84.6% in single-vessel, 2-vessel, 3-vessel disease, and LM PCI, respectively, whereas in-hospital mortality was 27.9%, 33.9%, 46.5%, and 55.9%. Bleeding rates were low (2.0%-2.3 %) and not different between groups. In a multivariate analysis a higher age, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow <3 after PCI, 3-vessel disease, and LM PCI were independent predictors of mortality. In conclusion, PCI of the LM is performed in about 12.5% of patients with AMI and CS and was associated with a high procedural success rate, whereas mortality is increased with LM PCI.

Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Devices in Aortic Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis of 42,105 Patients.

Background: In recent years, trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an excellent alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, there are several approved devices on the market, yet comparisons among them are scarce. We aimed to compare the various devices via a network meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched studies that provide comparisons of either a single TAVI with SAVR or two different TAVI devices and report clinical outcomes. Results: We included 12 RCT and 13 propensity-matched studies comprising 42,105 patients, among whom 27,134 underwent TAVI using various valve systems (Sapien & Sapien XT, Sapien 3, Corvalve, Evolut & Evolut Pro, Acurate Neo, Portico). The mean follow-up time was 23.4 months. Sapien 3 was superior over SAVR in the reduction of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.53; 95%CrI 0.31-0.91), while no significant difference existed between other devices and SAVR. Aortic regurgitation was more frequent among TAVI devices compared to SAVR. There was no significant difference between the various THVs and SAVR in cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, NYHA class III-IV, and endocarditis. Conclusions: Newer generation TAVI devices, especially Sapien 3 and Evolut R/Pro are associated with improved outcomes compared to SAVR and other devices of the older generation.

Aspirin with Low-Dose Ticagrelor or with Low-Dose Rivaroxaban for Secondary Prevention: A Cost per Outcome Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Secondary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with diagnosed cardiovascular disease and high ischemic risk poses a significant challenge in clinical practice. The combinations of aspirin with low-dose (LD) ticagrelor or LD rivaroxaban have shown superiority in preventing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) compared with aspirin treatment alone. The comparative value for money of these two regimens remains unexplored. METHODS: We analyzed each regimen's annual cost needed to treat (CNT) by multiplying the annualized number needed to treat (aNNT) by the annual cost of each drug. The aNNTs were based on outcome data from PEGASUS TIMI-54 and COMPASS trials. Scenario analyses were performed to overcome variances in terms of population risk. Costs were calculated as 75% of US National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC), extracted in January 2022. The primary outcome was defined as CNT to prevent one MACE across the two regimens. Secondary value analysis was performed for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and cardiovascular death as separate outcomes. RESULTS: The aNNTs to prevent MACE with LD ticagrelor and with LD rivaroxaban were 229 [95% confidence interval (CI) 141-734] and 147 (95% CI 104-252), respectively. At an annual cost of US$3726 versus US$4533, the corresponding CNTs were US$853,254 (95% CI 525,366-2,734,884) with LD ticagrelor and US$666,351 (95% CI 471,432-1,142,316) with LD rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Combining aspirin with LD rivaroxaban provides better value for money than with LD ticagrelor for secondary prevention of MACE.

Comparison of Outcomes with or without Beta-Blocker Therapy After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (from the Acute Coronary Syndromes Israeli Survey [ACSIS]).

The contemporary benefit of routine beta-blocker therapy following myocardial infraction in the absence of heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction is unclear. We investigated the impact of beta-blockers on post myocardial infarction outcome in patients without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction among patients enrolled in the biennial Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Surveys. MACE rates at 30 days and overall mortality at one year were compared among patients discharged on beta-blockers versus not, after multivariate analysis to adjust for baseline differences. Between the years 2000 to 2016, data from 15.211consecutive ACS patients were collected. Of 7,392 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 6007 (79.9%) were discharged on beta-blocker therapy. Prescription of beta-blockers at discharge increased modestly from 32% to 38% over the 16-year period. The 30-day MACE rates were similar in patients on vs. not on beta-blockers at discharge (9.0% and 9.5%, respectively). One year survival did not differ significantly between those on vs. not on beta-blockers (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11, p = 0.18).In conclusion, beta-blocker therapy did not affect 30 days MACE or 1-year survival after myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure or reduced ejection fraction.

Current clinical management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the leading cause of death among patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Early restoration of blood flow of the infarct-related artery is of paramount importance, either with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In addition, early risk stratification is a critical task and required to guide complex decisions on management and therapy of CS after AMI. The use of short-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is increasing, although evidence for their effectiveness is limited. AREAS COVERED: We review the evidence for early revascularization of the culprit-lesion and risk stratification in patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. The current data for the use of MCS will be discussed and put into clinical perspective. EXPERT OPINION: The SHOCK trial has introduced an early invasive strategy with subsequent revascularization as standard of care in patients with AMI complicated by CS. In clinical practice PCI is the by far the most often used revascularization therapy in CS. Most important is restoration of normal flow (so called TIMI 3 patency) of the infarct artery to reduce mortality. Therefore, all efforts including intense antithrombotic therapy should be made to achieve TIMI 3 patency. Around three quarters of patients with CS have multivessel coronary artery disease. According to the results of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial PCI of the culprit lesion only is recommended as the preferred revascularization strategy in these patients, while additional lesions can be revascularized during a staged procedure. Immediate multivessel PCI could be performed in some specific angiographic scenarios, such as subtotal non-culprit lesions with reduced Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI)-flow, or multiple possible culprit lesions. However, this should be considered on an individual basis. CABG should be performed only in case of failed PCI and coronary anatomies not suitable for PCI. However, small case series report good outcomes in selected patients with CS undergoing CABG. Therefore, a randomized trial comparing PCI and CABG in patients with CS and multivessel disease seems warranted. Hopefully such a trial will take place to determine the optimal revascularization therapy in CS. One problem might be to find a sufficient number of cardiac surgeons who are willing to operate such high-risk surgical patients.

Feasibility and safety of exclusive echocardiography-guided intravenous temporary pacemaker implantation.

BACKGROUND: The standard approach for urgent trans-venous temporary cardiac pacemaker (TVTP) implantation is fluoroscopy guidance. The delay in activation of the fluoroscopy-room and the transfer of unstable patients may be life-threatening. Echocardiography-guided TP implantation may increase the safety of the patients by obviating the need for in-hospital transfer. We examined the feasibility and safety of echocardiography-guided vs. fluoroscopy-guided TVTP implantation. METHODS: From January 2015 to September 2017 data for consecutive patients who needed emergent TVTP implantation were retrospectively reviewed. Ultrasound-guided TVTP protocol that was introduced in our center in January 2015 involved ultrasound guidance for both central venous access and pacing lead positioning. Access sites included femoral, subclavian, or jugular veins. Electrodes were placed in the right ventricular apex by means of echocardiographic monitoring in intensive care unit or by fluoroscopic guidance. Endpoints were achievement of successful ventricular pacing and procedural complications. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (17 echocardiography-guided and 49 fluoroscopy-guided) were included. There were no differences in pacing threshold between the echocardiography-guided group and the fluoroscopy-guided group (0.75 ± 0.58 mA vs. 0.57 ± 0.35 mA, p = 0.24). The access site for implantation was femoral vein in 27% for the fluoroscopy-guided vs. none for the echocardiography-guided approach (p = 0.015). One hematoma and one related infection occurred in the fluoroscopy-guided group. The need for electrode repositioning was observed in 1 patient in each group. There were no procedural-related deaths in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiography-guided temporary cardiac pacing is a feasible and safe alternative to fluoroscopy-guided approach and significantly lowers the need for in-hospital transfer.