Distal Versus Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention The DISCO RADIAL Trial

BACKGROUND Currently, transradial access (TRA) is the recommended access for coronary procedures because of increased safety, with radial artery occlusion (RAO) being its most frequent complication, which will increasingly affect patients undergoing multiple procedures during their lifetimes. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as a promising alternative access to minimize RAO risk. A large-scale, international, randomized trial comparing RAO with TRA and DRA is lacking. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of DRA compared with conventional TRA with respect to forearm RAO. METHODS DISCO RADIAL (Distal vs Conventional Radial Access) was an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in which patients with indications for percutaneous coronary procedure using a 6-F Slender sheath were randomized to DRA or TRA with systematic implementation of best practices to reduce RAO. The primary endpoint was the incidence of forearm RAO assessed by vascular ultrasound at discharge. Secondary endpoints include crossover, hemostasis time, and access site-related complications. RESULTS Overall, 657 patients underwent TRA, and 650 patients underwent DRA. Forearm RAO did not differ between groups (0.91% vs 0.31%; P = 0.29). Patent hemostasis was achieved in 94.4% of TRA patients. Crossover rates were higher with DRA (3.5% vs 7.4%; P = 0.002), and median hemostasis time was shorter (180 vs 153 minutes; P < 0.001). Radial artery spasm occurred more with DRA (2.7% vs 5.4%; P = 0.015). Overall bleeding events and vascular complications did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS With the implementation of a rigorous hemostasis protocol, DRA and TRA have equally low RAO rates. DRA is associated with a higher crossover rate but a shorter hemostasis time. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation

iFR/FFR/IVUS Discordance and Clinical Implications: Results From the Prospective Left Main Physiology Registry

peer reviewedOBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess discordance between results of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), fractional flow reserve (FFR), and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in intermediate left main coronary (LM) lesions, and its impact on clinical decision making and outcome. METHODS: We enrolled 250 patients with a 40%-80% LM stenosis in a prospective, multicenter registry. These patients underwent both iFR and FFR measurements. Of these, 86 underwent IVUS and assessment of the minimal lumen area (MLA), with a 6 mm 2 cutoff for significance. RESULTS: Isolated LM disease was recognized in 95 patients (38.0%), while 155 patients (62.0%) had both LM disease and downstream disease. In 53.2% of iFR+ and 56.7% of FFR+ LM lesions, the measurement was positive in only one daughter vessel. iFR/FFR discordance occurred in 25.0% of patients with isolated LM disease and 36.2% of patients with concomitant downstream disease (P=.049). In patients with isolated LM disease, discordance was significantly more common in the left anterior descending artery and younger age was an independent predictor of iFR-/FFR+ discordance. iFR/MLA and FFR/MLA discordance occurred in 37.0% and 29.4%, respectively. Within 1 year of follow-up, major cardiac adverse events (MACE) occurred in 8.5% and 9.7% (P=.763) of patients whose LM lesion was deferred or revascularized, respectively. Discordance was not an independent predictor of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: Current methods of estimating LM lesion significance often yield discrepant findings, complicating therapeutic decision-making

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on TAVR Activity: A Worldwide Registry

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had a considerable impact on the provision of structural heart intervention worldwide. Our objectives were: 1) to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) activity globally; and 2) to determine the differences in the impact according to geographic region and the demographic, development, and economic status of diverse international health care systems. Methods: We developed a multinational registry of global TAVR activity and invited individual TAVR sites to submit TAVR implant data before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the number of TAVR procedures performed monthly from January 2019 to December 2021 was collected. The adaptive measures to maintain TAVR activity by each site were recorded, as was a variety of indices relating to type of health care system and national economic indices. The primary subject of interest was the impact on TAVR activity during each of the pandemic waves (2020 and 2021) compared with the same period pre–COVID-19 (2019). Results: Data were received from 130 centers from 61 countries, with 14 subcontinents and 5 continents participating in the study. Overall, TAVR activity increased by 16.7% (2,337 procedures) between 2018 and 2019 (ie, before the pandemic), but between 2019 and 2020 (ie, first year of the pandemic), there was no significant growth (–0.1%; –10 procedures). In contrast, activity again increased by 18.9% (3,085 procedures) between 2020 and 2021 (ie, second year of the pandemic). During the first pandemic wave, there was a reduction of 18.9% (945 procedures) in TAVR activity among participating sites, while during the second and third waves, there was an increase of 6.7% (489 procedures) and 15.9% (1,042 procedures), respectively. Further analysis and results of this study are ongoing and will be available at the time of the congress. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic initially led to a reduction in the number of patients undergoing TAVR worldwide, although health care systems subsequently adapted, and the number of TAVR recipients continued to grow in subsequent COVID-19 pandemic waves. Categories: STRUCTURAL: Valvular Disease: Aorti

Embolization of Left Atrial Appendage Closure Devices: A Systematic Review of Cases Reported With the Watchman Device and the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (vol 86, pg 128, 2015)

status: publishe

Embolization of left atrial appendage closure devices: A systematic review of cases reported with the watchman device and the amplatzer cardiac plug

OBJECTIVES: We sought to provide a systematic review of reported cases of LAA closure device embolization by focusing on the two most commonly implanted devices: the Watchman (WM) device and the Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP). METHODS: A comprehensive search of the Pubmed database was conducted until October 1, 2014. Studies were included if they described at least 1 case of embolization of the WM and/or the ACP. RESULTS: A total of 20 studies reporting 31 cases of device embolization were identified, including 13 cases with WM and 18 cases. The timing of embolization was described in 29 cases and was categorized as acute in 20 cases (65%) and late in 9 cases (30%). The anatomical location of embolized devices was reported in 21 cases: into the aorta in 9 cases, into the left ventricle (LV) in 9 cases and into the left atrial cavity in 3 cases. As compared to embolization into the aorta or the left atrial cavity, device embolization into the LV was associated with a higher rate of surgical retrieval (8/9 vs 2/12; 88% vs 17%, P = 0.0019). Major adverse events related to device embolization occurred in three patients (9.6%). CONCLUSIONS: LAA closure device embolization occurs mainly in the periprocedural period but late embolizations are not uncommon. Although embolization into the aorta or the left atrium can be successfully managed by percutaneous techniques in most cases, device embolization into the LV is associated with a higher rate of surgical retrieval, increasing thereby procedure-related morbidity.status: publishe