Clinical Outcomes of Percutaneous Left-Atrial Appendage Occlusion with Conscious Sedation without an Anesthesiologist on Site: Results from a Multicenter Study.

Background and Objectives: Percutaneous left-atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion is an important therapeutic option for preventing cardioembolic stroke in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) at high risk of thromboembolic events and with contraindications for oral anticoagulation (OAC). It is usually performed with transesophageal echocardiography (TOE) guidance under general anesthesia (GA). In this retrospective study, we present a multicenter experience of LAA occlusion performed with conscious sedation (CS) without an anesthesiologist on site. Materials and Methods: All the patients on the waiting list for LAA occlusion procedure at Infermi Hospital, Rivoli, and San Luigi Gonzaga University Hospital, Orbassano, from October 2018 to October 2022 were analyzed. All the procedures were performed with a Watchman/FLX LAA closure device under TOE and fluoroscopic guidance without an anesthesiologist on site. CS was performed with a combination of midazolam and fentanyl as needed. Results: One-hundred fifteen patients were included (age 76.4 ± 7.6 years, median CHA2DS2Vasc 4.4 ± 1.4). CS was performed using midazolam (mean dose 5.9 ± 2.1 mg), adding fentanyl for thirty-nine (33.9%) patients in case of poor tolerance for the procedure despite midazolam. The acute procedural success rate was 99.1%. We observed seven acute severe complications. No patients needed anesthesiological assistance during the procedure, and no cases of respiratory failure necessitating ventilation were reported. In a follow-up after 10 ± 9 months, one case of stroke (0.9%) and one case (0.9%) of transient ischemic attack (TIA) occurred. Conclusions: LAA occlusion performed under CS and without the presence of an anesthesiologist on site appears to be safe and effective. It can be an attractive alternative to general anesthesia (GA), as fewer resources are required.

Usefulness of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Recurrent Pericarditis.

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) offers the capability to objectively detect pericarditis by identifying pericardial thickening, edema/inflammation by Short-TI Inversion Recovery-T2 weighted (STIR-T2w) imaging, edema/inflammation or fibrosis by late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), and presence of pericardial effusion. This is especially helpful for the diagnosis of recurrent pericarditis. Aim of the present paper is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CMR findings as well as their potential prognostic value for the diagnosis of recurrent pericarditis. Multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients with recurrent pericarditis evaluated by CMR. We included 128 consecutive cases (60 males, 47%; mean age 48 ± 14 years). CMR was performed at a mean time of 12 days (95% confidence interval 15 to 21) after the clinical diagnosis. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for CMR diagnostic criteria and complications (additional recurrences, cardiac tamponade, and constrictive pericarditis). Areas under the ROC curve were respectively 64% for pericardial thickening, 84% for pericardial edema, 82% for pericardial LGE, and 71% for pericardial effusion. After a mean follow-up of 34 months, recurrences occurred in 52% of patients, tamponade in 6%, and constrictive pericarditis in 11%. Using a multivariable Cox model, elevation of CRP and presence of CMR pericardial thickening were predictors of adverse events, whereas the presence of CMR LGE was associated with a lower risk. The prognostic model for adverse events using gender, age, CRP level, and all CMR variables showed a C-index of 0.84. In conclusion, CMR findings show high diagnostic accuracy and may help identifying patients at higher risk of complications.

Feasibility of carotid artery stenting with double cerebral embolic protection in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials comparing carotid artery stenting (CAS) with carotid endarterectomy have shown that the former can increase the stroke rate. However, in the last years, because of the improvements either of the technique or the improvement of the stents and embolic protection devices (EPD), CAS has become a very competitive procedure. In this study, we tried to assess the feasibility and the safety of using double EPD (proximal and distal) in high-risk patients. METHODS: We collected data about all consecutive patients with carotid artery stenosis who underwent CAS and compared clinical and procedural characteristics as well as immediate and 30-day outcomes between the use of double vs. single EPD. RESULTS: Between November 2007 and August 2014, 294 patients underwent CAS. In 35 of them (11.9%) double EPD was used. In comparison with the patients treated with single EPD, those with double EPD presented more with acute carotid syndrome (recurrent TIAs < 48 hr, minor stroke < 14 days) and with complex plaque (79.4 vs. 33.6%, P < 0.0001). There was no difference between the 2 groups in primary success (100 vs. 99.6%, P = 0.16) and in 30-days major complications: death (0 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.6), major stroke (0 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.42), and minor stroke (0 vs 1.1%, P = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, in high-risk patients with high-risk lesions, the use of double EPD (proximal and distal) is safe and effective in minimizing the risk of cerebral embolization, but, to validate such a technique in wide range of patients, further studies are warranted.

[MGuard Dacron mesh-covered stent implantation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and high thrombotic burden: in-hospital and long-term outcome in a single high-volume center]. / MGuard "Dacron mesh covered" stent per il trattamento della sindrome coronarica acuta con sopraslivellamento del tratto ST in presenza di elevato carico trombotico: outcome intraospedaliero e a lungo termine in un singolo centro ad alto volume.

BACKGROUND: The MGuard (MG) is a stainless-steel closed cell stent covered with an ultra-thin polymer mesh sleeve, which has the purpose of ensuring reduced distal embolization of thrombotic material, thus lowering the risk of no-reflow/slow-flow phenomena. Only few data are available that evaluated the usefulness of the MG stent in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with a high thrombotic burden. METHODS: We prospectively collected data of patients presenting with STEMI and high thrombotic burden (thrombus burden grade 4 or 5 according to the TIMI score) who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with MG stent implantation in our center. Lesions involving a bifurcation or very calcified and tortuous vessels were not included. Final TIMI 3 flow, normal myocardial blush grade (MBG), and complete ST-segment resolution were defined as short-term endpoints, whereas major adverse cardiovascular events were evaluated during follow-up. RESULTS: From August 2008 to June 2013, the MG stent was implanted in 104 (9.3%) of 1108 patients who underwent primary PCI. Cardiogenic shock on admission was present in 4 patients (3.8%). Final TIMI 3 flow was achieved in 97.1% of patients, MBG 3 in 56.7%, and regression of ST-segment elevation ≥70% within 90 min was recorded in 64.4% of patients. In-hospital mortality was 2.9% (n=3), and at a mean follow-up of 455±430 days overall major adverse cardiovascular events were 11 (10.6%). Cardiac death occurred in 5 patients (4.9%) and stent thrombosis in 2 (1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, the use of the mesh-covered MG stent in vessels with high thrombotic burden despite thrombus aspiration was effective and safe both immediately and at mid-term follow-up.