Peripheral Arterial Disease in the Context of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Influence on Ejection Fraction Deterioration and the Onset of Acute Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease is a condition that causes narrowing of the arteries, impairing circulation to the extremities. Globally, it affects millions of people and is more prevalent in older adults and those with diabetes, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. There is an overlap specific to polyvascular patients, and almost 50% of patients with PAD have coronary artery disease. Compelling evidence reveals a noteworthy association between PAD and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in individuals experiencing acute coronary syndrome (ACS) but limited knowledge exists regarding the influence of PAD on left ventricular systolic function during ACS. METHODS: In a retrospective case-control study, we examined 100 participants who presented with ACS (mean age = 61.03 years, 80 [80%] males). The patients were divided into two groups: the ACS-PAD group (32 subjects, 74% of them with STEMI, 10% with NSTEMI, and 16% with NSTEACS) and the ACS-nonPAD group (68 participants). RESULTS: This study highlighted that PAD negatively impacts patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). These patients were likely to experience a decline of approximately 19.3% in their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) compared to the ACS-nonPAD group (p = 0.003) and presented a worse clinical status (the PAD group correlated with Killip class IV, p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that patients diagnosed with NSTEACS and PAD tend to have a higher LVEF of over 55% and a lower HEART score. Patients with PAD tend to have a functionally higher EF but clinically present with more unstable scenarios (pulmonary edema and cardiogenic shock). This is mainly driven by a higher prevalence of HFpEF in the PAD group. Looking closer at the PAD group, they have a higher incidence of comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, CAD, and stroke, as well as being more active smokers.

TAVR Interventions and Coronary Access: How to Prevent Coronary Occlusion.

Due to technological advancements during the past 20 years, transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) have significantly improved the treatment of symptomatic and severe aortic stenosis, significantly improving patient outcomes. The continuous evolution of transcatheter valve models, refined imaging planning for enhanced accuracy, and the growing expertise of technicians have collectively contributed to increased safety and procedural success over time. These notable advancements have expanded the scope of TAVR to include patients with lower risk profiles as it has consistently demonstrated more favorable outcomes than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). As the field progresses, coronary angiography is anticipated to become increasingly prevalent among patients who have previously undergone TAVR, particularly in younger cohorts. It is worth noting that aortic stenosis is often associated with coronary artery disease. While the task of re-accessing coronary artery access following TAVR is challenging, it is generally feasible. In the context of valve-in-valve procedures, several crucial factors must be carefully considered to optimize coronary re-access. To obtain successful coronary re-access, it is essential to align the prosthesis with the native coronary ostia. As part of preventive measures, strategies have been developed to safeguard against coronary obstruction during TAVR. One such approach involves placing wires and non-deployed coronary balloons or scaffolds inside an at-risk coronary artery, a procedure known as chimney stenting. Additionally, the bioprosthetic or native aortic scallops intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction (BASILICA) procedure offers an effective and safer alternative to prevent coronary artery obstructions. The key objective of our study was to evaluate the techniques and procedures employed to achieve commissural alignment in TAVR, as well as to assess the efficacy and measure the impact on coronary re-access in valve-in-valve procedures.

Bicuspid Aortic Valves and Transcatheter Valve Replacement: Feasibility and Safety.

In the last few years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has rapidly become the standard of care for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). If initially it was preferred only for high-risk surgical patients, now even low-risk patients are eligible candidates. There were several factors to consider why patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) were omitted from these trials. However, it should be noted that bicuspid AS is not unusual among patients who experience transcatheter valve implantation. The TAVR procedure in BAV is a reliable and safe treatment option for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) but it is associated with an elevated incidence of paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and the likelihood of implanting a permanent pacemaker. Bicuspid valves do not appear to be a contraindication to TAVI according to current data, but further specific clinical trials will be required to confirm this conclusion.

Acute Coronary Syndrome: Disparities of Pathophysiology and Mortality with and without Peripheral Artery Disease.

There are a number of devastating complications associated with peripheral artery disease, including limb amputations and acute limb ischemia. Despite the overlap, atherosclerotic diseases have distinct causes that need to be differentiated and managed appropriately. In coronary atherosclerosis, thrombosis is often precipitated by rupture or erosion of fibrous caps around atheromatous plaques, which leads to acute coronary syndrome. Regardless of the extent of atherosclerosis, peripheral artery disease manifests itself as thrombosis. Two-thirds of patients with acute limb ischemia have thrombi associated with insignificant atherosclerosis. A local thrombogenic or remotely embolic basis of critical limb ischemia may be explained by obliterative thrombi in peripheral arteries of patients without coronary artery-like lesions. Studies showed that thrombosis of the above-knee arteries was more commonly due to calcified nodules, which are the least common cause of luminal thrombosis associated with acute coronary events in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Cardiovascular mortality was higher in peripheral artery disease without myocardial infarction/stroke than in myocardial infarction/stroke without peripheral artery disease. The aim of this paper is to gather published data regarding the disparities of acute coronary syndrome with and without peripheral artery disease in terms of pathophysiology and mortality.

Is There an Advantage of Ultrathin-Strut Drug-Eluting Stents over Second- and Third-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents?

In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered the gold standard of care for revascularization. By reducing neointimal hyperplasia, drug-eluting coronary stents decrease the need for repeat revascularizations compared with conventional coronary stents without an antiproliferative drug coating. It is important to note that early-generation DESs were associated with an increased risk of very late stent thrombosis, most likely due to delayed endothelialization or a delayed hypersensitivity reaction to the polymer. Studies have shown a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis with developing second-generation DESs with biocompatible and biodegradable polymers or without polymers altogether. In addition, research has indicated that thinner struts are associated with a reduced risk of intrastent restenosis and angiographic and clinical results. A DES with ultrathin struts (strut thickness of 70 µm) is more flexible, facilitates better tracking, and is more crossable than a conventional second-generation DES. The question is whether ultrathin eluting drug stents suit all kinds of lesions. Several authors have reported that improved coverage with less thrombus protrusion reduced the risk of distal embolization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Others have described that an ultrathin stent might recoil due to low radial strength. This could lead to residual stenosis and repeated revascularization of the artery. In CTO patients, the ultrathin stent failed to prove non-inferiority regarding in-segment late lumen loss and showed statistically higher rates of restenosis. Ultrathin-strut DESs with biodegradable polymers have limitations when treating calcified (or ostial) lesions and CTOs. However, they also possess certain advantages regarding deliverability (tight stenosis, tortuous lesions, high angulation, etc.), ease of use in bifurcation lesions, better endothelialization and vascular healing, and reducing stent thrombosis risk. In light of this, ultrathin-strut stents present a promising alternative to existing DESs of the second and third generation. The aims of the study are to compare ultrathin eluting stents with second- and third-generation conventional stents regarding procedural performance and outcomes based on different lesion types and specific populations.