Tips and tricks for invasive assessment of aortic stenosis

Invasive aortic valve assessment remains an essential cath lab procedure. The most widely used invasive technique for more than a decade has been performed with a Langston® Dual Lumen Catheter (Teleflex – Morrisville, NC), which has a 6Fr outer catheter and a 4Fr inner lumen enabling simultaneous measurement of left ventricular (LV) and aortic (AO) pressures.1 The catheter was recalled in March 2020 due to several instances of separation of the inner catheter during power injection.2, 3 This leaves cardiologists without a straightforward technique for simultaneously measuring LV and AO pressures in the cath lab. This Tip of the Month focuses on the various techniques available to perform an invasive aortic valve study.4–

Novel Multi-Functional Life Support System

Concepts of cardiopulmonary support (CPS), extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), and ventricular support (VS) have been thoroughly studied and refined. These perfusion adjuncts often require multiple devices, skill sets, and significant financial burden to purchase, maintain, deploy, and use. We describe a novel system that is rapidly deployable, user-friendly, portable, safe, and economical. Over a 1-year period we have used a multi-functional life support system (MLS) in the cardiac catheterization laboratory, cardiovascular intensive care unit, and cardiac surgical suites. Further, we have conducted multiple transports within the hospital and one to an alternate facility. Applications have included ECMO, cardiopulmonary resuscitation-supported cardiogenic shock, high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), valvuloplasty, right ventricular assist device transition to ECMO post cardiotomy, left ventricular assist device transition to ECMO, ventricular septal defect closure, and ECMO transition to conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Duration of support has ranged from approximately 39 minutes to several days

Outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention before, during, and after transition to a default transradial approach at a veterans affairs medical center

Transradial coronary intervention (TRI) lowers bleeding and mortality compared with transfemoral coronary intervention (TFI). There are limited data on outcomes as TFI operators transition to a default TRI practice. The aim of this study was to assess TFI and TRI outcomes before, during, and after the year TRI was first learned by femoral operators. Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2006 to 2012 were included. In 2009, TRI was learned by all operators and then used as the default PCI approach from 2010 to 2012. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were collected. Predictors of major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and mortality were determined by multivariable analysis; 1192 veterans were included. TRI rates were 9% (2006-2008), 65% (2009), and 90% (2010-2012). Incidence of 1-year MACE and mortality was 5.4% and 3.9%, respectively, in 2009, and 5.6% and 3%, respectively, during 2010 to 2012. Major bleeding remained a

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis

Purpose of Review: This article reviews the latest data on unprotected left main (ULM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, with a focus on the NOBLE and EXCEL trials. Recent Findings: In EXCEL trial, the primary endpoint at 3 years was 15.4% in the PCI group and 14.7% in the CABG group (p = 0.02 for non-inferiority of PCI versus CABG). In NOBLE, the primary endpoint at 5 years was 28% and 18% for PCI and CABG, respectively (HR 1.51, CI 1.13–2.0, which did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority of PCI to CABG; p for superiority of CABG was 0.0044). Higher repeat revascularization and non-procedural myocardial infarction were noted in PCI group but there was no difference in all-cause or cardiac mortality between the two groups. Summary: A heart team approach with appropriate patient selection, careful assessment of LM lesions, and meticulous procedural technique makes PCI a valid alternative to CABG for ULM stenosis

Drug-Eluting Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Intervention: An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background: Drug eluting stents (DES) are preferred over bare metal stents (BMS) for native coronary artery revascularization unless contraindicated. However, the preferred stent choice for saphenous venous graft (SVG) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is unclear due to conflicting results. Methods: PubMed, Clinical trials registry and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2018. Seven studies (n = 1639) comparing DES versus BMS in SVG-PCI were included. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), target lesion revascularization (TLR), in-stent thrombosis, binary in-stent restenosis, and late lumen loss (LLL). Results: Overall, during a mean follow up of 32.1 months, there was no significant difference in the risk of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR between DES and BMS. However, short-term follow up (mean 11 months) showed lower rate of MACE (OR 0.66 [0.51, 0.85]; p = 0.002), TVR (OR 0.47 [0.23, 0.97]; p = 0.04) and binary in-stent restenosis (OR 0.14 [0.06, 0.37]; p \u3c 0.0001) in DES as compared with BMS. This benefit was lost on long-term follow up with a mean follow up 35.5 months. Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of SVG-PCI, DES use was associated with similar MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, MI, in-stent thrombosis, TVR and TLR compared with BMS during long-term follow up. There was high incidence of MACE noted in both DES and BMS suggesting a need for exploring novel strategies to treat SVG disease to improve clinical outcomes

Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale in Patients with Cryptogenic Stroke — An Updated Comprehensive Meta-Analysis

Background: The ideal treatment strategy for patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale (PFO) is not yet clear. Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing transcatheter PFO closure with medical therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke to prevent recurrent ischemic stroke showed mixed results. This meta-analysis aims to compare rates of recurrent stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA) and all-cause mortality with PFO closure and medical therapy vs. medical therapy alone. Methods: PubMed and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies published through June 2018, comparing PFO closure plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone. Six RCTs (n = 3750) comparing PFO closure with medical therapy were included in the analysis. End points were recurrent stroke, TIA and all-cause mortality. The odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed and p \u3c 0.05 was considered as a level of significance. Results: A total of 1889 patients were assigned to PFO closure plus medical therapy and 1861 patients were assigned to medical therapy only. Risk of recurrent stroke was significantly lower in the PFO closure plus medical therapy group compared to medical therapy alone. (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33–0.67, p \u3c 0.0001). Rate of TIA was similar between the two groups (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.52–1.14), p = 0.18). There was no difference in all-cause mortality between two groups (OR 0.73, CI 0.33–1.58, p = 0.42). Patients undergoing PFO closure were more likely to develop transient atrial fibrillation than medical therapy alone (OR: 5.85; CI: 3.06–11.18, p ≤0.0001) whereas the risk of bleeding was similar between the groups (OR: 0.93; CI: 0.55–1.57, p = 0.78). Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that transcatheter closure of PFO plus medical therapy is superior to medical therapy alone for the prevention of recurrent cryptogenic stroke. However, PFO closure in these patients has not been shown to reduce the risk of recurrent TIA or all-cause mortality. There is a higher rate of transient atrial fibrillation post PFO closure device placement, the long-term effects of which have yet to be studied

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

Introduction: Bivalirudin and heparin are the two most commonly used anticoagulants used during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). The results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in the era of radial access are controversial, questioning the positive impact of bivalirudin on bleeding. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize the results of RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin with or without Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors (GPI). Methods: This systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses PRISMA statements for reporting systematic reviews. We searched the National Library of Medicine PubMed, Clinicaltrial.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to include clinical studies comparing bivalirudin with heparin in patients undergoing PCI. Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed for the summary. Findings: Several RCTs and meta-analyses have demonstrated the superiority of bivalirudin over heparin plus routine GPI use in terms of preventing bleeding complications but at the expense of increased risk of ischemic complications such as stent thrombosis. The hypothesis of post-PCI bivalirudin infusion to mitigate the risk of acute stent thrombosis has been tested in various RCTs with conflicting results. In comparison, heparin offers the advantage of having a reversible agent, of lower cost and reduced incidence of ischemic complications. Conclusion: Bivalirudin demonstrates its superiority over heparin plus GPI with better clinical outcomes in terms of less bleeding complications, thus making it as anticoagulation of choice particularly in patients at high risk of bleeding. Further studies are warranted for head to head comparison of bivalirudin to heparin monotherapy to establish an optimal heparin dosing regimen and post-PCI bivalirudin infusion to affirm its beneficial effect in reducing acute stent thrombosis

Culprit Vessel Only Versus Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction with Cardiogenic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Previous studies comparing outcomes between culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CV-PCI) versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis investigates the optimal approach for management of these patients considering recently published data. Methods: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched for all clinical studies published until May 1, 2018, which compared outcomes in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Studies comparing CV-PCI versus MV-PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were screened for inclusion in final analysis. The primary end point was in-hospital/30 day mortality. Secondary endpoints included long term (\u3e6 months) mortality, renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) were computed and p values \u3c0.05 were considered significant. Results: Patient who underwent CV-PCI had significantly lower short-term mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.61–0.87, p = 0.0005), and lower odds of severe renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.59‐0.98, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term mortality, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction between two groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed lower short-term mortality and decreased odds of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy with CV-PCI compared to MV-PCI. However, subgroup analysis including studies exclusively assessing STEMI patients revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long term results

Cardiogenic Shock Management: International Survey of Contemporary Practices

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on current cardiogenic shock (CS) management strategies. METHODS: A 48-item open- and closed-ended question survey on the diagnosis and management of CS. RESULTS: A total of 211 respondents (3.2%) completed the survey, including 64% interventional cardiologists, 14% general cardiologists, 11% advanced heart failure cardiologists, 5% intensivists, 3% cardiothoracic surgeons; the remainder were internists, emergency medicine, and other physicians. Nearly half (45%) reported practicing at sites without advanced heart failure support/resources, with neither durable ventricular assist devices nor heart transplant available; 16% practice at sites without on-site cardiac surgery and 6% do not offer 24/7 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) coverage. The majority (70%) practice in closed intensive care units with multidisciplinary rounding (73%), cardiologists frequently involved in patient care (89%), and involving cardiology-intensivist co-management (41%). Over half (55%) reported use of CS protocols, 61% reported routine arterial line use, 25% reported routine use of pulmonary artery catheter use to guide management and 9% did not. The preferred vasopressor and/or inotrope was norepinephrine (68%). For coronary angiography and PCI, 53% use transradial access, 72% only revascularize the culprit vessel, and 44% institute mechanical circulatory support (MCS) prior to revascularization. Percutaneous MCS availability was as follows: intra-aortic balloon pump (92%), Impella (78%), peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (66%), and TandemHeart (28%). Most respondents (58%) do not use a scoring system for risk stratification and most (62%) reported that CS-specific cardiac rehabilitation programs were unavailable at their sites. CONCLUSION: Wide variation exists in the care delivered and/or resources available for patients with CS. Our survey suggests opportunities for standardization of care