A case of Prinzmetal angina diagnosed by Holter monitoring who survived a sudden cardiac death: Case report

AbstractA 47-year-old female patient was admitted to our hospital after a syncope. She reported episodes of angina in previous weeks. On admission, there were no electrocardiographic changes but elevated troponin. Coronary angiogram showed minimal arteriosclerosis and normal left ventricle. Holter monitoring showed severe ST-segment changes during an anginal episode.With calcium antagonists, the patient experienced no further episodes of angina or ST changes during telemetry.Six weeks later, calcium antagonist was stopped for unknown reason. After that, the patient experienced a second prolonged syncope with cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defibrillation of ventricular fibrillation.Discussion“A variant form of angina pectoris” was first described by Myron Prinzmetal. He postulated coronary vasospasm as the underlying cause, however, after 50 years the exact pathophysiology is still not known.Patients with “variant angina” usually present with “spontaneous” attacks of typical retrosternal anginal pain during rest or normal activities, but not with physical exercise.Sudden cardiac deaths were reported in patients with Prinzmetal angina in only a few case reports.ConclusionIn cases of variant angina accompanied by syncope, a provocation test and an electrophysiological study should be considered

Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease in patients with chronic kidney disease: a pre-specified analysis of the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial

Background Data on the safety and efcacy of drug-coated balloon (DCB) compared to drug-eluting stent (DES) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are scarce, particularly at long term. This pre-specifed analysis aimed to investigate the 3-year efcacy and safety of DCB versus DES for small coronary artery disease (<3 mm) according to renal function at baseline. Methods BASKET-SMALL-2 was a large multi-center, randomized, controlled trial that tested the efcacy and safety of DCBs (n=382) against DESs (n=376) in small vessel disease. CKD was defned as eGFR<60 ml/min/1.73m2 . The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (MACE) during 3 years. Results A total of 174/758 (23%) patients had CKD, out of which 91 were randomized to DCB and 83 to DES implantation. The primary efcacy outcome during 3 years was similar in both, DCB and DES patients (HR 0.98; 95%-CI 0.67–1.44; p=0.937) and patients with and without CKD (HR 1.18; 95%-CI 0.76–1.83; p=0.462), respectively. Rates of cardiac death and all-cause death were signifcantly higher among patients with CKD but not afected by treatment with DCB or DES. Major bleeding events were lower in the DCB when compared to the DES group (12 vs. 3, HR 0.26; 95%-CI 0.07–0.92; p=0.037) and not infuenced by presence of CKD. Conclusions The long-term efcacy and safety of DCB was similar in patients with and without CKD. The use of DCB was associated with signifcantly fewer major bleeding events (NCT 01574534)

Impact of Insulin-Treated Compared to Non-Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus on Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Drug-Coated Balloons versus Drug-Eluting Stents in De Novo Coronary Artery Disease: The Randomized BASKET-SMALL 2 Trial

Background: We evaluated the outcome of PCI of de novo stenosis with drug-coated balloons (DCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) versus non-insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (NITDM). Methods: Patients were randomized in the BASKET-SMALL 2 trial to DCB or DES and followed over 3 years for MACE (cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization [TVR]). Outcome in the diabetic subgroup (n = 252) was analyzed with respect to ITDM or NITDM. Results: In NITDM patients (n = 157), rates of MACE (16.7% vs. 21.9%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29–1.58, p = 0.37), death, non-fatal MI, and TVR (8.4% vs. 14.5%, HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–1.03, p = 0.057) were similar between DCB and DES. In ITDM patients (n = 95), rates of MACE (DCB 23.4% vs. DES 22.7%, HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.46–2.74, p = 0.81), death, non-fatal MI, and TVR (10.1% vs. 15.7%, HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.18–2.27, p = 0.49) were similar between DCB and DES. TVR was significantly lower with DCB versus DES in all diabetic patients (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.18–0.95, p = 0.038). Conclusions: DCB compared to DES for treatment of de novo coronary lesions in diabetic patients was associated with similar rates of MACE and numerically lower need for TVR both for ITDM and NITDM patients

Drug-coated balloons for small coronary artery disease (BASKET-SMALL 2): an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial

Drug-coated balloons (DCB) are a novel therapeutic strategy for small native coronary artery disease. However, their safety and efficacy is poorly defined in comparison with drug-eluting stents (DES).; BASKET-SMALL 2 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised non-inferiority trial. 758 patients with de-novo lesions (&lt;3 mm in diameter) in coronary vessels and an indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive angioplasty with DCB versus implantation of a second-generation DES after successful predilatation via an interactive internet-based response system. Dual antiplatelet therapy was given according to current guidelines. The primary objective was to show non-inferiority of DCB versus DES regarding major adverse cardiac events (MACE; ie, cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularisation) after 12 months. The non-inferiority margin was an absolute difference of 4% in MACE. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01574534.; Between April 10, 2012, and February 1, 2017, 382 patients were randomly assigned to the DCB group and 376 to DES group. Non-inferiority of DCB versus DES was shown because the 95% CI of the absolute difference in MACE in the per-protocol population was below the predefined margin (-3·83 to 3·93%, p=0·0217). After 12 months, the proportions of MACE were similar in both groups of the full-analysis population (MACE was 7·5% for the DCB group vs 7·3% for the DES group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·58-1·64], p=0·9180). There were five (1·3%) cardiac-related deaths in the DES group and 12 (3·1%) in the DCB group (full analysis population). Probable or definite stent thrombosis (three [0·8%] in the DCB group vs four [1·1%] in the DES group; HR 0·73 [0·16-3·26]) and major bleeding (four [1·1%] in the DCB group vs nine [2·4%] in the DES group; HR 0·45 [0·14-1·46]) were the most common adverse events.; In small native coronary artery disease, DCB was non-inferior to DES regarding MACE up to 12 months, with similar event rates for both treatment groups.; Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Basel Cardiovascular Research Foundation, and B Braun Medical AG

Excimer laser coronary atherectomy in septal collaterals during retrograde recanalization of a chronic total occlusion

Management of chronic total occlusions has been refined through the development of a retrograde approach via collateral pathways. We describe the use of Excimer Laser Coronary Atherectomy in the septal collaterals. This appraoch was not yet described in the literature

Interaction between shock coils increased the incidence of inappropriate therapies and lead failure in implantable cardioverter defibrillator

Aims: Shock coil interaction in patients with multiple implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads is occasionally observed. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of shock coil interaction and its clinical relevance. Methods and results: All ICD patients (646 patients) who came to follow up control in our ICD ambulance between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2011 in the department of cardiology in Bad Berka hospital were retrospectively evaluated in this study. All baseline demographic, clinical, and procedural characteristics and postoperative chest x ray in postero-anterior and lateral view as well as clinical and ICD follow up data were evaluated. Among 646 patients 42 had multiple ICD leads (6.5%) of whom 36 patients (5.5% of total cohort patients and 85.7% of patients with multiple ICD leads) had shock coil interaction and presented the study group (Group I). The control group (Group II) consisted of 610 patients without coil-coil interaction including patients with single shock lead (604 patients) or patients with multiple leads but without interaction between shock coils (6 patients). Inappropriate anti-tachycardia therapies and RV lead revisions were more frequent in patients with interaction between shock coils (Group I vs Group II: 27.7% and 5.7%; p = 0.049 and 30.6% vs 6.4; p = 0.0001, respectively). Conclusions: Interaction between shock coils may be one of possible causes of lead failure and resulted in inappropriate therapies and subsequent lead revision