Risk of sudden cardiac death:Are coronary chronic total occlusions an additional risk factor?

Sudden arrhythmic cardiac death remains a significant, potentially reversible, cardiological challenge in terms of creating accurate risk prediction models. The current guidelines for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy are mainly based on left ventricular ejection fraction despite its low sensitivity and specificity in predicting sudden cardiac death (SCD). Chronic total occlusions have been associated with increased mortality but further research is required to clarify if they should be incorporated in a risk model predicting SCD aiming to identify patients that would benefit from ICD therapy even with preserved ejection fraction

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors and COVID-19 infection

Purpose of Review: This review summarises the literature data and provides an overview of the role and impact of the use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Recent Findings: The angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) has a key role in the regulation of the RAAS pathway, downregulating angiotensin II and attenuating inflammation, vasoconstriction and oxidative stress. Additionally, it plays an instrumental part in COVID-19 infection as it facilitates the cell entry of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and enables its replication. The use and role of RAAS inhibitors therefore during the COVID-19 pandemic have been intensively investigated. Summary: Although it was initially assumed that RAAS inhibitors may relate to worse clinical outcomes and severe disease, data from large studies and meta-analyses demonstrated that they do not have an adverse impact on clinical outcomes or prognosis. On the contrary, some experimental and retrospective observational cohort studies showed a potential protective mechanism, although this effect remains to be seen in large clinical trials

Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in elective drug coated balloon angioplasty

Objectives: We sought to answer whether 1-month duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is safe after elective drug-coated balloon only (DCB) angioplasty. Background: The duration of DAPT after elective DCB was called into question after the ESC Focused DAPT Update of 2017. Until then, a 1-month duration of DAPT was considered safe by national consensus groups (German, Italian, and Chinese) supported by data from prospective worldwide registries. The ESC Guidelines recommended a 6-month duration of DAPT based on evidence from in-stent restenosis randomized controlled trials only. Methods: Retrospective, real-world population, single-center analysis conducted from January 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017 in a high-volume, tertiary PCI center. Consecutive patients receiving 1-month duration of DAPT after elective DCB angioplasty were included. We identified a primary composite outcome of cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization at 6-months. Results: A total of 303 patients (78.5% male) with mean age of 67 ± 12.5 were included. This incorporated 86.1% de novo lesions and 56.5% nonsmall (≥3 mm diameter) coronary arteries treated. There were no reported outcomes of lesion thrombosis, target vessel MI, target lesion revascularization or cardiac death at 6-months. There were two (0.6%) nontarget vessel MIs and one (0.3%) noncardiac death. Conclusion: One-month duration of DAPT appears safe after elective DCB-only angioplasty, highlighting this strategy for patients at high-risk of bleeding. These results also show favorable clinical outcomes for de novo coronary artery disease and nonsmall coronary arteries treated with DCB-only angioplasty. A 1-month duration of DAPT appears a safe and attractive option

Drug-coated balloons or drug-eluting stents: Determining an optimum strategy for the high bleeding risk patients

The management of patients who require percutaneous coronary intervention and are at high risk of bleeding continues to be challenging; balancing thrombotic risk versus bleeding risk to determine the safest duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). With recent efforts to determine the safety of 1 month of DAPT after implantation of a drug-eluting stent, drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have also been explored as both have been shown superior to bare-metal stents which have historically been used for patients with high bleeding risk. We sought to review the literature surrounding the safety profile and bleeding events with both DCBs and drug-eluting stents, and conclude that whilst both offer safety of cessation of DAPT after 1 month, DCBs offer lower major adverse cardiovascular events

Acute vessel closure or major adverse cardiac events of drug-coated balloons and stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis

While the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) has become the first-line strategy for treating coronary artery disease, there are still drawbacks with their use. As our understanding of coronary artery anatomy and physiology evolves, growing evidence supports the use of drug-coated balloons (DCB) not only in the treatment of in-stent restenosis but also in de novo lesions. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine if there is a difference in outcomes when DCBs are used versus when stents are used. PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was acute vessel closure and the secondary outcomes were stent complications including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Eleven studies with a total of 2349 patients were included. No significant difference was found in terms of acute vessel closure between DCBs and all stents (2.6% vs. 1.0%, OR: 2.13 (0.74–6.44), I2: 4%, p = 0.16). Furthermore, there was no difference in MACE (6.8% vs. 10.1%, OR: 0.53 (0.27–1.04), I2: 48%, p = 0.06), all-cause mortality and target lesion revascularisation. This meta-analysis suggests that the use of DCBs is a safe alternative to stents when treating coronary artery disease

Drug coated balloons for coronary artery bifurcation lesions: a systematic review and focused meta-analysis

Objectives We sought to systematically review the evidence supporting the role of drug coated balloons (DCBs) in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Background DCBs are emerging as an attractive alternative treatment strategy for treating coronary bifurcations due to simplifying the approach and reducing rates of stent related complications. We systematically reviewed the evidence for DCB use in coronary bifurcations and conducted a focused meta-analysis on late lumen loss in the side branch comparing DCB and plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA). Methods This study was conducted in line with the PRISMA statement. All studies (including both RCTs and observational studies, excluding case reports) using DCB as part of a bifurcation strategy were included in this review. A literature search identified a total of ten studies for inclusion. A focused meta-analysis was undertaken for the use of DCB in side-branch compared with POBA. Mean late lumen loss was used with a random effects model due to heterogeneity. Results DCB was found to be superior to POBA for side branch treatment in bifurcations (p = 0.01). There are four studies that investigated the use of DCB for main branch treatment in a bifurcation, with evidence supporting its safety in main branches of bifurcation lesions, while prospective observational studies have demonstrated favourable target lesion revascularisation rates. Conclusion Although there is a lack of robust RCTs comparing DCBs with current generation DES, DCBs appear safe in main branch bifurcation lesions with improved side branch late lumen loss when compared with DES or POBA

Effects of intravenous iron replacement therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

(1) Background: Iron deficiency (ID) is an important adverse prognostic marker in patients with heart failure (HF); however, it is unclear whether intravenous iron replacement reduces cardiovascular mortality in this patient group. Here, we estimate the effect of intravenous iron replacement therapy on hard clinical outcomes following the publication of IRONMAN, the largest trial in this field. (2) Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, prospectively registered with PROSPERO and reported according to PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed and Embase for randomized controlled trials investigating intravenous iron replacement in patients with HF and co-existing ID. The primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalizations for HF and a combination of the primary outcome and hospitalizations for HF. (3) Results: A total of 1671 items were identified and after removal of duplicates we screened titles and abstracts of 1202 records. Some 31 studies were identified for full-text review and 12 studies were included in the final review. The odds ratio (OR) for cardiovascular death using a random effects model was 0.85 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.04) and for all-cause mortality it was 0.83 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.15). There was a significant reduction in hospitalizations for HF (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.69) and the combination of hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular death (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.85). (4) Conclusions: This review supports the use of IV iron replacement reducing hospitalization rates for HF, however more research is required to determine the effect on cardiovascular mortality and to identify the patient population most likely to benefit

Cost effectiveness analysis of drug coated balloon only angioplasty for de novo coronary artery disease

Aims: We aimed to perform a cost analysis of drug coated balloon (DCB)-only angioplasty versus drug eluting stent (DES), for de novo disease of all vessel sizes and all clinical indications. Background: DCB angioplasty is an emergent technology for the treatment of coronary artery disease. There is lack of data regarding the cost-effectiveness of DCB-only angioplasty for treatment of de novo coronary artery disease as compared with second generation DES. Methods: We compared total costs of patients treated with DCB or DES for first presentation of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, or stable angina due to de novo disease between January 1, 2018 and November 15, 2019. We defined total cost as the sum of (1) procedural devices-cost, (2) procedural staff-cost, (3) post-percutaneous coronary intervention hospital stay cost, and (4) antiplatelet regime cost. A cost minimization analysis was performed to compare the costs of DCB and DES. Results: We present 1952 all-comer, consecutive patients; 902 (1064 lesions) treated with DCB and 1050 (1236 lesions) treated with DES for de novo coronary artery disease. The cost per patient was estimated to be £9.02 more expensive in the DCB group (£3153.00 vs. £3143.98). However, the cost per lesion treated was calculated to be £15.51 cheaper in the DCB group (£3007.56 vs. £3023.07). The results were consistent irrespective of duration of long-term antiplatelet medications. Conclusion: We have compared the cost-effectiveness of DCB-only angioplasty to DES-angioplasty and showed that the per patient and per lesion results were not different and hence cost should not be implicated in the decision to choose DCB or DES

CT angiography compared to invasive angiography for stable coronary disease as predictors of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events- a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Computational tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) is increasingly the diagnostic test of choice for investigating patients with stable anginal symptoms. Objectives: We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing CTCA with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with regards to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), procedural complications and rates of revascularisation. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in line with the PRISMA statement. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE Ovid and Embase, with three studies included in meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Review Manager 5.3 for MacOS software and outcomes expressed as odds ratio, with 95% confidence intervals and sensitivity analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 5662 patients were included in this study level meta-analysis. There was no difference in MACE between CT and angiography [2.97% v 3.45%, fixed-effect model, OR: 0.84 (0.62–1.14), p = 0.26, I2 0%] and no difference found in rates of myocardial infarction, death or stroke. CTCA was associated with a reduced rate of revascularisation [12.6% v 18.3%, fixed-effects model, OR: 0.64 (0.55–0.75), p<0.00001, I2 =0%]. However, CTCA was not associated with a significantly lower complication rate [0.5% v 1.72%, random effects model, OR: 0.52 (0.06–4.38), p = 0.55, I2 52%]. Conclusion: CTCA is a safe strategy for investigating patients with stable angina with no associated increase in MACE but a reduction in revascularisation rates