Nonsystem Reasons for Delay in Door-to-Balloon Time and Associated In-Hospital Mortality A Report From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to characterize nonsystem reasons for delay in door-to-balloon time (D2BT) and the impact on in-hospital mortality.BackgroundStudies have evaluated predictors of delay in D2BT, highlighting system-related issues and patient demographic characteristics. Limited data exist, however, for nonsystem reasons for delay in D2BT.MethodsWe analyzed nonsystem reasons for delay in D2BT among 82,678 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention within 24 h of symptom onset in the CathPCI Registry from January 1, 2009, to June 30, 2011.ResultsNonsystem delays occurred in 14.7% of patients (n = 12,146). Patients with nonsystem delays were more likely to be older, female, African American, and have greater comorbidities. The in-hospital mortality for patients treated without delay was 2.5% versus 15.1% for those with delay (p < 0.01). Nonsystem delay reasons included delays in providing consent (4.4%), difficult vascular access (8.4%), difficulty crossing the lesion (18.8%), “other” (31%), and cardiac arrest/intubation (37.4%). Cardiac arrest/intubation delays had the highest in-hospital mortality (29.9%) despite the shortest time delay (median D2BT: 84 min; 25th to 75th percentile: 64 to 108 min); delays in providing consent had a relatively lower in-hospital mortality rate (9.4%) despite the longest time delay (median D2BT: 100 min; 25th to 75th percentile: 80 to 131 min). Mortality for delays due to difficult vascular access, difficulty crossing a lesion, and other was also higher (8.0%, 5.6%, and 5.9%, respectively) compared with nondelayed patients (p < 0.0001). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, in-hospital mortality remained higher for patients with nonsystem delays.ConclusionsNonsystem reasons for delay in D2BT in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting for primary percutaneous coronary intervention are common and associated with high in-hospital mortality

Impact of paravalvular leak on left ventricular remodeling and global longitudinal strain 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Background:New mild or persistent moderate paravalvular leak (PVL) is a known predictor of poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Its impact on left ventricular (LV) remodeling and global longitudinal strain (GLS) has not been well studied.Materials &amp; methods:We collected echocardiographic data in 99 TAVR patients. LV remodeling and GLS were compared between patients with and without PVL.Results:Patients without PVL (n = 84) had significant LV ejection fraction, wall thickness and LV mass improvement compared with patients with PVL (n = 15; p &lt; 0.001 for all). Diastolic function worsened in patients with PVL. Baseline GLS improved significantly regardless of PVL (p = 0.016 and p = 0.01, respectively) and was not predictive of LV ejection fraction or LV mass improvement when analyzed in tertiles.Conclusion:PVL impedes reverse LV remodeling but not GLS improvement 1-year after TAVR. Baseline GLS was not a predictor of LV remodeling

Impella Versus Intra‐Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study

Background Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA‐ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA‐ECMO. Methods and Results Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA‐ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA‐ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P‐trend<0.001). In‐hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P=0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in‐hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P=0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P=0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P<0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P=0.002), higher in‐hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P=0.001), and higher 40‐day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P<0.001). Conclusions In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA‐ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform‐specific comparative outcomes of LVU