The Transradial Approach for Cardiac Catheterization and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Review

Cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention play an important role in the management of coronary artery disease. Although the transfemoral approach has been the traditionally dominant method, there has been an increased utilization of the transradial approach. Multiple observational studies and randomized clinical trials have shown fewer bleeding complications, reduced morbidity and mortality, improved quality of life, and better economic outcomes when the transradial approach is utilized when compared to the transfemoral approach. Despite its many benefits, utilization of this approach in certain countries including the United States has been less than optimal due to a lower adoption rates mostly driven by lack of training opportunities and decreased awareness of clinical benefits of the transradial approach. In this review, the history, observational trends, efficacy, and technical aspects of transradial cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention are discussed

Frailty and Cardiovascular Disease

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) comprises a vast spectrum of disease states ranging from hypertension (HTN) to valvular heart disease (VHD). CVD is known to be the leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and health‐care expenditure throughout the world. According to the World Health Organization, coronary artery disease (CAD) and stroke, both subsets of CVD, are the world’s biggest killers, accounting for a combined 15 million deaths in 2015. These diseases have remained the leading causes of death globally in the last 15 years. In 2010, CAD alone was projected to cost the U.S. $108.9 billion including the cost of health‐care services, medications, and lost productivity. The presence of frailty significantly worsens outcomes for patients suffering from CAD. With just this one example of how frailty affects CVD, it is clear that understanding the impact of frailty upon patients afflicted with the spectrum of cardiovascular disease is integral for the care of this very significant patient population

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After Aortic Valve Replacement Comparison of Transfemoral, Transapical, Transaortic, and Surgical Approaches

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) associated with different methods of isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR)—transfemoral (TF), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAo) catheter-based valve replacement and conventional surgical approaches.BackgroundThe relative incidences of AF associated with the various access routes for AVR have not been well characterized.MethodsIn this single-center, retrospective cohort study, we evaluated a total of 231 consecutive patients who underwent AVR for degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) between March 2010 and September 2012. Patients with a history of paroxysmal, persistent, or chronic AF, with bicuspid aortic valves, and patients who died within 48 h after AVR were excluded. A total of 123 patients (53% of total group) qualified for inclusion. Data on documented episodes of new-onset AF, along with all clinical, echocardiographic, procedural, and 30-day follow-up data, were collated.ResultsAF occurred in 52 patients (42.3%). AF incidence varied according to the procedural method. AF occurred in 60% of patients who underwent surgical AVR (SAVR), in 53% after TA-TAVR, in 33% after TAo-TAVR cases, and 14% after TF-TAVR. The episodes occurred at a median time interval of 53 (25th to 75th percentile, 41 to 87) h after completion of the procedure. Procedures without pericardiotomy had an 82% risk reduction of AF compared with those with pericardiotomy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.18; 95% confidence interval: 0.05 to 0.59).ConclusionsAF was a common complication of AVR with a cumulative incidence of >40% in elderly patients with degenerative AS who underwent either SAVR or TAVR. AF was most common with SAVR and least common with TF-TAVR. Procedures without pericardiotomy were associated with a lower incidence of AF

Antithrombotic Treatment in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Insights for Cerebrovascular and Bleeding Events

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a therapeutic alternative for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at high or prohibitive surgical risk. However, patients undergoing TAVI are also at high risk for both bleeding and stroke complications, and specific mechanical aspects of the procedure itself can increase the risk of these complications. The mechanisms of periprocedural bleeding complications seem to relate mainly to vascular/access site complications (related to the use of large catheters in a very old and frail elderly population), whereas the pathophysiology of cerebrovascular events remains largely unknown. Further, although mechanical complications, especially the interaction between the valve prosthesis and the native aortic valve, may play a major role in events that occur during TAVI, post-procedural events might also be related to a prothrombotic environment or state generated by the implanted valve, the occurrence of atrial arrhythmias, and associated comorbidities. Antithrombotic therapy in the setting of TAVI has been empirically determined, and unfractionated heparin during the procedure followed by dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin (indefinitely) and clopidogrel (1 to 6 months) is the most commonly recommended treatment. However, bleeding and cerebrovascular events are common; these may be modifiable with optimization of periprocedural and post-procedural pharmacology. Further, as the field of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy evolves, potential drug combinations will multiply, introducing variability in treatment. Randomized trials are the best path forward to determine the balance between the efficacy and risks of antithrombotic treatment in this high risk-population

Predicting risk of cardiovascular events 1 to 3 years post-myocardial infarction using a global registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction tools are lacking for patients with stable disease some years after myocardial infarction (MI). HYPOTHESIS: A practical long-term cardiovascular risk index can be developed. METHODS: The long-Term rIsk, Clinical manaGement and healthcare Resource utilization of stable coronary artery dISease in post-myocardial infarction patients prospective global registry enrolled patients 1 to 3 years post-MI (369 centers; 25 countries), all with ≥1 risk factor (age ≥65 years, diabetes mellitus requiring medication, second prior MI, multivessel coronary artery disease, or chronic non-end-stage kidney disease [CKD]). Self-reported health was assessed with EuroQoL-5 dimensions. Multivariable Poisson regression models were used to determine key predictors of the primary composite outcome (MI, unstable angina with urgent revascularization [UA], stroke, or all-cause death) over 2 years. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 621 (6.9%) of 9027 eligible patients: death 295 (3.3%), MI 195 (2.2%), UA 103 (1.1%), and stroke 58 (0.6%). All events accrued linearly. In a multivariable model, 11 significant predictors of primary outcome (age ≥65 years, diabetes, second prior MI, CKD, history of major bleed, peripheral arterial disease, heart failure, cardiovascular hospitalization (prior 6 months), medical management (index MI), on diuretic, and poor self-reported health) were identified and combined into a user-friendly risk index. Compared with lowest-risk patients, those in the top 16% had a rate ratio of 6.9 for the primary composite, and 18.7 for all-cause death (overall c-statistic; 0.686, and 0.768, respectively). External validation was performed using the Australian Cooperative National Registry of Acute Coronary Care, Guideline Adherence and Clinical Events registry (c-statistic; 0.748, and 0.849, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients >1-year post-MI, recurrent cardiovascular events and deaths accrue linearly. A simple risk index can stratify patients, potentially helping to guide management

Stratification of Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement According to Surgical Inoperability for Technical Versus Clinical Reasons

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to examine the impact of reasons for surgical inoperability on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).BackgroundPatients with severe aortic stenosis may be deemed inoperable due to technical or clinical reasons. The relative impact of each designation on early and late outcomes after TAVR is unclear.MethodsPatients were studied from the inoperable arm (cohort B) of the randomized PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial and the nonrandomized continued access registry. Patients were classified according to whether they were classified as technically inoperable (TI) or clinically inoperable (CLI). Reasons for TI included porcelain aorta, previous mediastinal radiation, chest wall deformity, and potential for injury to previous bypass graft on sternal re-entry. Reasons for CLI were systemic factors that were deemed to make survival unlikely.ResultsOf the 369 patients, 23.0% were considered inoperable for technical reasons alone; the remaining were judged to be CLI. For TI, the most common cause was a porcelain aorta (42%); for CLI, it was multiple comorbidities (48%) and frailty (31%). Quality of life and 2-year mortality were significantly better among TI patients compared with CLI patients (mortality 23.3% vs. 43.8%; p < 0.001). Nonetheless, TAVR led to substantial survival benefits compared with standard therapy in both inoperable cohorts.ConclusionsPatients undergoing TAVR based solely on TI have better survival and quality of life improvements than those who are inoperable due to clinical comorbidities. Both TI and CLI TAVR have significant survival benefit in the context of standard therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894

Characteristics of emergency medicine residency programs in Colombia

Introduction: Emergency medicine (EM) is in different stages of development around the world. Colombia has made significant strides in EM development in the last two decades and recognized it as a medical specialty in 2005. The country now has seven EM residency programs: three in the capital city of Bogotá, two in Medellin, one in Manizales, and one in Cali. The seven residency programs are in different stages of maturity, with the oldest founded 20 years ago and two founded in the last two years. The objective of this study was to characterize these seven residency programs. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with faculty and residents from all the existing programs in 2013-2016. Topics included program characteristics and curricula. Results: Colombian EM residencies are three-year programs, with the exception of one four-year program. Programs accept 3-10 applicants yearly Only one program has free tuition and the rest charge tuition. The number of EM faculty ranges from 2-15. EM rotation requirements range from 11-33% of total clinical time. One program does not have a pediatric rotation. The other programs require 1-2 months of pediatrics or pediatric EM. Critical care requirements range from 4-7 months. Other common rotations include anesthesia, general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, gynecology, orthopedics, ophthalmology, radiology, toxicology, psychiatry, neurology, cardiology, pulmonology, and trauma. All programs offer 4-6 hours of protected didactic time each week. Some programs require Advanced Cardiac Life Support, Pediatric Advanced Life Support and Advanced Trauma Life Support, with some programs providing these trainings in-house or subsidizing the cost. Most programs require one research project for graduation. Resident evaluations consist of written tests and oral exams several times per year. Point-of-care ultrasound training is provided in four of the seven programs. Conclusion: As emergency medicine continues to develop in Colombia, more residency programs are expected to emerge. Faculty development and sustainability of academic pursuits will be critically important. In the long term, the specialty will need to move toward certifying board exams and professional development through a national EM organization to promote standardization across programs. © 2017 Patiño et al

Diabetes association with self-reported health, resource utilization, and prognosis post-myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. We compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and clinical outcomes of stable post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with and without DM. HYPOTHESIS: In post-MI patients, DM is associated with worse HRQoL, increased HRU, and worse clinical outcomes. METHODS: The prospective, observational long-term risk, clinical management, and healthcare Resource utilization of stable coronary artery disease study obtained data from 8968 patients aged ≥50 years 1 to 3 years post-MI (369 centers; 25 countries). Patients with ≥1 of the following risk factors were included: age ≥65 years, history of a second MI >1 year before enrollment, multivessel coronary artery disease, creatinine clearance ≥15 and <60 mL/min, and DM treated with medication. Self-reported health status was assessed at baseline, 1 and 2 years and converted to EQ-5D scores. The main outcome measures were baseline HRQoL and HRU during follow-up. RESULTS: DM at enrollment was 33% (2959 patients, 869 insulin treated). Mean baseline EQ-5D score (0.86 vs 0.82; P < .0001) was higher; mean number of hospitalizations (0.38 vs 0.50, P < .0001) and mean length of stay (LoS; 9.3 vs 11.5; P = .001) were lower in patients without vs with DM. All-cause death and the composite of CV death, MI, and stroke were significantly higher in DM patients, with adjusted 2-year rate ratios of 1.43 (P < .01) and 1.55 (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stable post-MI patients with DM (especially insulin treated) had poorer EQ-5D scores, higher hospitalization rates and LoS, and worse clinical outcomes vs those without DM. Strategies focusing specifically on this high-risk population should be developed to improve outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01866904 (https://clinicaltrials.gov)