Mechanical Circulatory Support for Complex High-risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Technological and procedural innovations presently permit the safe and effective performance of increasingly complex percutaneous coronary interventions, while new mechanical circulatory support devices offer circulatory and ventricular support to patients with severely reduced left ventricular systolic function and deranged cardiovascular hemodynamics. Together, these advances now permit the application of complex percutaneous coronary interventions to higher-risk patients who might otherwise be left untreated. Increasing observational data support the use of mechanical circulatory support in appropriate complex and high-risk patients as part of a larger multidisciplinary heart team treatment plan. In-progress and upcoming randomized clinical trials may provide higher-quality evidence to better guide management decisions in the near future

Initial Findings From the North American COVID-19 Myocardial Infarction Registry

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted many aspects of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care, including timely access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The goal of the NACMI (North American COVID-19 and STEMI) registry is to describe demographic characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with STEMI. A prospective, ongoing observational registry was created under the guidance of 3 cardiology societies. STEMI patients with confirmed COVID+ (group 1) or suspected (person under investigation [PUI]) (group 2) COVID-19 infection were included. A group of age- and sex-matched STEMI patients (matched to COVID+ patients in a 2:1 ratio) treated in the pre-COVID era (2015 to 2019) serves as the control group for comparison of treatment strategies and outcomes (group 3). The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, stroke, recurrent myocardial infarction, or repeat unplanned revascularization. As of December 6, 2020, 1,185 patients were included in the NACMI registry (230 COVID+ patients, 495 PUIs, and 460 control patients). COVID+ patients were more likely to have minority ethnicity (Hispanic 23%, Black 24%) and had a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (46%) (all p < 0.001 relative to PUIs). COVID+ patients were more likely to present with cardiogenic shock (18%) but were less likely to receive invasive angiography (78%) (all p < 0.001 relative to control patients). Among COVID+ patients who received angiography, 71% received PPCI and 20% received medical therapy (both p < 0.001 relative to control patients). The primary outcome occurred in 36% of COVID+ patients, 13% of PUIs, and 5% of control patients (p < 0.001 relative to control patients). COVID+ patients with STEMI represent a high-risk group of patients with unique demographic and clinical characteristics. PPCI is feasible and remains the predominant reperfusion strategy, supporting current recommendations. [Display omitted

Ventilation and outcomes following robotic-assisted abdominal surgery : an international, multicentre observational study

Background: International data on the epidemiology, ventilation practice, and outcomes in patients undergoing abdominal robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) are lacking. The aim of the study was to assess the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs), and to describe ventilator management after abdominal RAS. Methods: This was an international, multicentre, prospective study in 34 centres in nine countries. Patients >= 18 yr of age undergoing abdominal RAS were enrolled between April 2017 and March 2019. The Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) score was used to stratify for higher risk of PPCs (>= 26). The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs. Secondary endpoints included the preoperative risk for PPCs and ventilator management. Results: Of 1167 subjects screened, 905 abdominal RAS patients were included. Overall, 590 (65.2%) patients were at increased risk for PPCs. Meanwhile, 172 (19%) patients sustained PPCs, which occurred more frequently in 132 (22.4%) patients at increased risk, compared with 40 (12.7%) patients at lower risk of PPCs (absolute risk difference: 12.2% [95% confidence intervals (CI), 6.8-17.6%]; P<0.001). Plateau and driving pressures were higher in patients at increased risk, compared with patients at low risk of PPCs, but no ventilatory variables were independently associated with increased occurrence of PPCs. Development of PPCs was associated with a longer hospital stay. Conclusions: One in five patients developed one or more PPCs (chiefly unplanned oxygen requirement), which was associated with a longer hospital stay. No ventilatory variables were independently associated with PPCs