Role of intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in intracoronary imaging for coronary artery disease: a systematic review.

Coronary angiography has long been the standard for coronary imaging, but it has limitations in assessing vessel wall anatomy and guiding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Intracoronary imaging techniques like intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) can overcome these limitations. IVUS uses ultrasound and OCT uses near-infrared light to visualize coronary pathology in unique ways due to differences in temporal and spatial resolution. These techniques have evolved to offer clinical utility in plaque characterization and vessel assessment during PCI. Meta-analyses and adjusted observational studies suggest that both IVUS and OCT-guided PCI correlate with reduced cardiovascular risks compared to angiographic guidance alone. While IVUS demonstrates consistent clinical outcome benefits, OCT evidence is less robust. IVUS has progressed from early motion detection to high-resolution systems, with smaller compatible catheters. OCT utilizes near infrared light to achieve unparalleled resolutions, but requires temporary blood clearance for optimal imaging. Enhanced visualization and guidance make IVUS and OCT well-suited for higher risk PCI in patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease by allowing detailed visualization of complex lesions and ensuring optimal stent deployment and positioning in PCI for patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, improving outcomes. IVUS and recent advancements in zero- and low-contrast OCT techniques can reduce nephrotoxic contrast exposure, thus helping to minimize PCI complications in these high-risk patient groups. IVUS and OCT provide valuable insights into coronary pathophysiology and guide interventions precisely compared to angiography alone. Both have comparable clinical outcomes, emphasizing the need for tailored imaging choices based on clinical scenarios. Continued refinement and integration of intravascular imaging will likely play a pivotal role in optimizing coronary interventions and outcomes. This systematic review aims to delve into the nuances of IVUS and OCT, highlighting their strengths and limitations as PCI adjuncts.

A Comprehensive Review of Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices.

Treatment strategies to combat cardiogenic shock (CS) have remained stagnant over the past decade. Mortality rates among patients who suffer CS after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain high at 50%. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices have evolved as novel treatment strategies to restore systemic perfusion to allow cardiac recovery in the short term, or as durable support devices in refractory heart failure in the long term. Haemodynamic parameters derived from right heart catheterization assist in the selection of an appropriate MCS device and escalation of mechanical support where needed. Evidence favouring the use of one MCS device over another is scant. An intra-aortic balloon pump is the most commonly used short-term MCS device, despite providing only modest haemodynamic support. Impella CP® has been increasingly used for CS in recent times and remains an important focus of research for patients with AMI-CS. Among durable devices, Heartmate® 3 is the most widely used in the USA. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these MCS devices and to guide the operator for their use in CS. This article provides a brief overview of the types of currently available MCS devices and the indications for their use.

Outcomes with catheter-directed thrombolysis compared with anticoagulation alone in patients with acute deep venous thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to investigate the benefits and risks of catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT). BACKGROUND: The role of CDT in the management of DVT is evolving. Data on CDT versus anticoagulation alone in acute DVT is sparse. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared CDT to anticoagulation alone in patients with acute DVT. RESULTS: We included 11 studies (four randomized control trials [RCTs] and seven observational studies) with a total of 8,737 patients. During hospital stay, patients who received CDT had higher odds of major bleeding (2.5% vs. 1.6%; OR 1.46, 95% CI [1.07, 1.98], p = .02), blood transfusion (10.8% vs. 6.2%; OR 1.8, 95% CI [1.52, 2.13], p < .001), and thromboembolism (15.5% vs. 10%; OR 1.67, 95% CI [1.47, 1.91], p < .001) compared with anticoagulation alone. At 6-month follow-up, patients who received CDT had higher venous patency (71.1% vs. 37.7%; OR 5.49, 95% CI [2.63, 11.5], p < .001) and lower postthrombotic syndrome (PTS; 27% vs. 40.7%; OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.22, 0.86], p = .02). During a mean follow-up duration of 30.5 ± 28 months, CDT group continued to have higher venous patency (79.6% vs. 71.8%; OR 3.79, 95% CI [1.54, 9.32], p = .004) and lower PTS (44.7% vs. 50.5%; OR 0.43, 95% CI [0.23, 0.78], p = .006), but no difference in thromboembolism. CONCLUSION: Compared with anticoagulation alone, CDT for patients with acute DVT was associated with a higher risk of complications, but a higher rate of venous patency and lower risk of postthrombotic syndrome at 2.5 years follow-up.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With New-Onset Persistent Left Bundle Branch Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The impact of new-onset persistent left bundle branch block (LBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on all-cause mortality has been controversial. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of eleven studies (7398 patients) comparing the short- and long- outcomes in patients who had new-onset LBBB after TAVR vs. those who did not. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 20.5±14months, patients who had new-onset persistent LBBB after TAVR had a higher incidence of all-cause mortality (29.7% vs. 23.6%; OR 1.28 (1.04-1.58), p=0.02), rehospitalization for heart failure (HF) (19.5% vs. 17.3%; OR 1.4 (1.13-1.73), p=0.002), and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMi) (19.7% vs. 7.1%; OR 2.4 (1.64-3.52), p<0.001) compared with those who did not. Five studies (4180 patients) reported adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause mortality; new LBBB remained associated with a higher risk of mortality (adjusted HR 1.43 (1.08-1.9), p<0.01, I2=81%). CONCLUSION: Post-TAVR persistent LBBB is associated with higher PPMi, HF hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality. While efforts to identify patients who need post-procedural PPMi are warranted, more studies are required to evaluate the best follow-up and treatment strategies, including the type of pacing device if required, to improve long-term outcomes in these patients.

Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive evaluation of contemporary randomized trials addressing the efficacy and safety of multivessel versus culprit vessel-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: Multivessel coronary artery disease is present in about one-half of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel and culprit vessel-only PCI produced conflicting results regarding the benefits of a multivessel PCI strategy. METHODS: A comprehensive search for published randomized controlled trials comparing multivessel PCI with culprit vessel-only PCI was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Services, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and scientific conference sessions from inception to September 15, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Primary efficacy outcomes were all-cause mortality and reinfarction. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials were included, representing 7,030 patients: 3,426 underwent multivessel PCI and 3,604 received culprit vessel-only PCI. Compared with culprit vessel-only PCI, multivessel PCI was associated with no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.05) and lower risk for reinfarction (RR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.00), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.44). Major bleeding (RR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.67), stroke (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.01), and contrast-induced nephropathy (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.95) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Multivessel PCI was associated with a lower risk for reinfarction, without any difference in all-cause mortality, compared with culprit vessel-only PCI in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.