The antithrombotic therapy of atrial fibrillation in patients with coronary heart disease

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cardiovascular disease, while atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common heart rhythm disorder. These diseases have common risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, sleep apnea, obesity and smoking. The frequency of CHD in patients with AF ranges from 17.0 to 46.5%, while the prevalence of AF among patients with CHD is low and is estimated at only 0.2–5.0%. AF is a well-known factor of unfavorable short-term and long-term prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction; it is associated with a significant increase in overall mortality. It is assumed that in 5-15% of cases of AF, coronary artery stenting and, accordingly, triple therapy with Aspirin, Clopidogrel or Ticagrelor and oral anticoagulant will ever be required. This requires very careful consideration of balanced antithrombotic therapy, taking into account the high risk of bleeding, the risk of stroke and stent thrombosis followed by acute coronary syndrome. Co-administration of oral anticoagulants with antiplatelet drugs, and in particular triple therapy, significantly increases the absolute risk of serious bleeding. In addition, severe bleeding is associated with a fivefold increase in the risk of adverse outcome after acute coronary syndrome. The presence of atrial fibrillation with coronary heart disease worsens the prognosis even in patients undergoing careful treatment

Mini-invasive technique of implanting the first domestic wireless epicardial pacemaker with a MEMS-converter

This article describes a minimally invasive surgical technique for implanting the pacemaker with a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) converter of kinematic energy into electrical energy in patients with life-threatening rhythm disorders. This kind of technique is recommended for patients with cardiac pathology who are preparing for surgical treatment of the main pathology with simultaneous implantation of the pacemaker with MEMS-converter of kinematic energy into electrical energy. Implantation of the pacemaker should be performed in the most energy-efficient zone of the epicardium, determined in advance by the method of tissue echocardiography

Simultaneous surgical correction of atrial fibrillation and aortic valve replacement: immediate results after surgery

Aim — To assess the results of simultaneous surgical correction of atrial fibrillation and aortic valve replacement. Materials and Methods — The retrospective analysis was held for the period of 2009-2016 of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and pathology of the aortic valve after combined operations. 68 patients were included in the study, the average age was 56 (51; 64) years; men 53%, women 47%. All patients were in III-IV functional class by NYHA classification. The duration of AF was 34 (24; 58) months. AF: persistent in 70,6%, paroxysmal in 29,4%. Calculated risks comprised: Euro Score II – 3,8 (2,4; 5,6), the risk of in-hospital mortality and the risk of total mortality by Ambler - 5,5 (3; 7,3) and 8 (6; 9), respectively. Results ― The average number of simultaneous procedures per one patient was – 4 (4; 4), minimum – 3, maximum – 5. In 100% cases was performed aortic valve and mitral valve correction and Maze IIIB procedure. CABG was performed in 20,6% of cases and tricuspid valve repair was performed in 67,6%. The total duration of operations was 6.3 ± 1.4 hours, the time of CPB: 208 (168; 224) min, aortic clamping time: 126 (119; 151) min. In-hospital mortality was 4.4%. The main non-lethal complications in the early postoperative period were heart failure, respiratory and renal insufficience, hemorrhage and transient neurological disorder. Conclusions ― There are few data demonstrating experience in performing of such complex surgical cases due to the severity of patients and small number of institutions having such experience. In our series of hospital mortality observations correlated with the calculated and accounted for 4.4%, which is an acceptable result in this group of patients

Hemolytic Performance in Two Generations of the Sputnik Left Ventricular Assist Device: A Combined Numerical and Experimental Study

Background: Currently, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are a successful surgical treatment for patients with end-stage heart failure on the waiting list or with contraindicated heart transplantation. In Russia, Sputnik 1 LVAD was also successfully introduced into clinical practice as a bridge-to-transplant and a destination therapy device. Development of Sputnik 2 LVAD was aimed at miniaturization to reduce invasiveness, optimize hemocompatibility, and improve versatility for patients of various sizes. Methods: We compared hemolysis level in flow path of the Sputnik LVADs and investigated design aspects influencing other types of blood damage, using predictions of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and experimental assessment. The investigated operating point was a flow rate of 5 L/min and a pressure head of 100 mm Hg at an impeller rotational speed of 9100 min−1. Results: Mean hemolysis indices predicted with CFD were 0.0090% in the Sputnik 1 and 0.0023% in the Sputnik 2. Averaged values of normalized index of hemolysis obtained experimentally for the Sputnik 1 and the Sputnik 2 were 0.011 ± 0.003 g/100 L and 0.004 ± 0.002 g/100 L, respectively. Conclusions: Obtained results indicate obvious improvements in hemocompatibility and sufficiently satisfy the determined miniaturization aim for the Sputnik 2 LVAD development

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

© 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline