VersaCross Transseptal System for Mitral Transcatheter Edge-To-Edge Repair With the PASCAL Repair Platform

BackgroundVersaCross is a novel radiofrequency transseptal solution that may improve the efficiency and workflow of transseptal puncture (TSP). The aim of this study was to compare the VersaCross transseptal system with mechanical needle systems during mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) with the PASCAL device.MethodsThis is a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent M-TEER with the PASCAL. Transseptal puncture was undertaken with either a mechanical needle or the VersaCross wire. The primary endpoints were success of TSP and successful delivery of the Edwards sheath on the chosen delivery wire. Secondary endpoints included number of wires used, tamponade rate, interval from femoral venous access to TSP and first PASCAL device deployment, procedural death, and stroke.ResultsThirty-three consecutive patients (10 with mechanical needle, 23 with VersaCross) who underwent M-TEER with the Edwards PASCAL device were identified. All patients had successful TSP. In the mechanical needle group, the Edwards sheath was successfully delivered on the Superstiff Amplatz wire in all cases. In the VersaCross arm, the radiofrequency wire was used successfully for delivery of the sheath in all cases. There were no cases of pericardial effusion/tamponade in either arm. Interval from femoral venous access to TSP and to deployment of the first PASCAL device was shorter with the VersaCross system. Significantly fewer wires were used with VersaCross. There were no procedural deaths or strokes in either group.ConclusionsVersaCross appears a safe and effective method of TSP and for delivery of the 22Fr sheath for M-TEER with PASCAL

Prevalence and Impact of Concomitant Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background: Concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an adverse prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). However, it remains unclear whether this is due to a causal effect of AF or whether AF acts as a surrogate marker for comorbidities in this population. Furthermore, there are limited data on whether coronary artery disease distribution impacts the risk of developing AF. Methods: Consecutive patients admitted with acute MI and treated using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at a single centre were retrospectively identified. Associations between AF and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) over a median of five years of follow-up were assessed using Cox regression, with adjustment for confounding factors performed using both multivariable modelling and a propensity-score-matched analysis. Results: AF was identified in N = 65/1000 (6.5%) of cases; these patients were significantly older (mean: 73 vs. 65 years, p < 0.001), with lower creatinine clearance (p < 0.001), and were more likely to have a history of cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.011) than those without AF. In addition, patients with AF had a greater propensity for left main stem (p = 0.001) or left circumflex artery (p = 0.004) involvement. Long-term MACCE rates were significantly higher in the AF group than in the non-AF group (50.8% vs. 34.2% at five years), yielding an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.86 (95% CI: 1.32–2.64, p < 0.001). However, after adjustment for confounding factors, AF was no longer independently associated with MACCEs, either on multivariable (adjusted HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.81–1.92, p = 0.319) or propensity-score-matched (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.59–1.82, p = 0.886) analyses. Conclusions: AF is observed in 6.5% of patients admitted with acute MI, and those with AF are more likely to have significant diseases involving left main or circumflex arteries. Although unadjusted MACCE rates were significantly higher in patients with AF, this effect was not found to remain significant after adjustment for comorbidities. As such, this study provided no evidence to suggest that AF is independently associated with MACCEs

Allopurinol versus usual care in UK patients with ischaemic heart disease (ALL-HEART): a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial

BACKGROUND: Allopurinol is a urate-lowering therapy used to treat patients with gout. Previous studies have shown that allopurinol has positive effects on several cardiovascular parameters. The ALL-HEART study aimed to determine whether allopurinol therapy improves major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ischaemic heart disease. METHODS: ALL-HEART was a multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial done in 18 regional centres in England and Scotland, with patients recruited from 424 primary care practices. Eligible patients were aged 60 years or older, with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a central web-based randomisation system accessed via a web-based application or an interactive voice response system, to receive oral allopurinol up-titrated to a dose of 600 mg daily (300 mg daily in participants with moderate renal impairment at baseline) or to continue usual care. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular endpoint of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death. The hazard ratio (allopurinol vs usual care) in a Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for superiority in a modified intention-to-treat analysis (excluding randomly assigned patients later found to have met one of the exclusion criteria). The safety analysis population included all patients in the modified intention-to-treat usual care group and those who took at least one dose of randomised medication in the allopurinol group. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT 2013-003559-39, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN32017426. FINDINGS: Between Feb 7, 2014, and Oct 2, 2017, 5937 participants were enrolled and then randomly assigned to receive allopurinol or usual care. After exclusion of 216 patients after randomisation, 5721 participants (mean age 72·0 years [SD 6·8], 4321 [75·5%] males, and 5676 [99·2%] white) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, with 2853 in the allopurinol group and 2868 in the usual care group. Mean follow-up time in the study was 4·8 years (1·5). There was no evidence of a difference between the randomised treatment groups in the rates of the primary endpoint. 314 (11·0%) participants in the allopurinol group (2·47 events per 100 patient-years) and 325 (11·3%) in the usual care group (2·37 events per 100 patient-years) had a primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04 [95% CI 0·89–1·21], p=0·65). 288 (10·1%) participants in the allopurinol group and 303 (10·6%) participants in the usual care group died from any cause (HR 1·02 [95% CI 0·87–1·20], p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: In this large, randomised clinical trial in patients aged 60 years or older with ischaemic heart disease but no history of gout, there was no difference in the primary outcome of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death between participants randomised to allopurinol therapy and those randomised to usual care. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research

Goodbye Hartmann trial: a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study on the current use of a surgical procedure developed a century ago

Background: Literature suggests colonic resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) instead of Hartmann's procedure (HP) for the treatment of left-sided colonic emergencies. We aim to evaluate the surgical options globally used to treat patients with acute left-sided colonic emergencies and the factors that leading to the choice of treatment, comparing HP and RPA. Methods: This is a prospective, international, multicenter, observational study registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total 1215 patients with left-sided colonic emergencies who required surgery were included from 204 centers during the period of March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. with a 1-year follow-up. Results: 564 patients (43.1%) were females. The mean age was 65.9 ± 15.6 years. HP was performed in 697 (57.3%) patients and RPA in 384 (31.6%) cases. Complicated acute diverticulitis was the most common cause of left-sided colonic emergencies (40.2%), followed by colorectal malignancy (36.6%). Severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3b) were higher in the HP group (P < 0.001). 30-day mortality was higher in HP patients (13.7%), especially in case of bowel perforation and diffused peritonitis. 1-year follow-up showed no differences on ostomy reversal rate between HP and RPA. (P = 0.127). A backward likelihood logistic regression model showed that RPA was preferred in younger patients, having low ASA score (≤ 3), in case of large bowel obstruction, absence of colonic ischemia, longer time from admission to surgery, operating early at the day working hours, by a surgeon who performed more than 50 colorectal resections. Conclusions: After 100 years since the first Hartmann's procedure, HP remains the most common treatment for left-sided colorectal emergencies. Treatment's choice depends on patient characteristics, the time of surgery and the experience of the surgeon. RPA should be considered as the gold standard for surgery, with HP being an exception

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely