Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes with previous coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of invasive vs. conservative management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5-10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT.

Inorganic nitrate benefits contrast-induced nephropathy after coronary angiography for acute coronary syndromes: the NITRATE-CIN trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), also known as contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) underlies a significant proportion of the morbidity and mortality following coronary angiographic procedures in high-risk patients and remains a significant unmet need. In pre-clinical studies inorganic nitrate, which is chemically reduced in vivo to nitric oxide, is renoprotective but this observation is yet to be translated clinically. In this study, the efficacy of inorganic nitrate in the prevention of CIN in high-risk patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is reported. METHODS: NITRATE-CIN is a double-blind, randomized, single-centre, placebo-controlled trial assessing efficacy of inorganic nitrate in CIN prevention in at-risk patients presenting with ACS. Patients were randomized 1:1 to once daily potassium nitrate (12 mmol) or placebo (potassium chloride) capsules for 5 days. The primary endpoint was CIN (KDIGO criteria). Secondary outcomes included kidney function [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)] at 3 months, rates of procedural myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03627130. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 640 patients were randomized with a median follow-up of 1.0 years, 319 received inorganic nitrate with 321 received placebo. The mean age of trial participants was 71.0 years, with 73.3% male and 75.2% Caucasian; 45.9% had diabetes, 56.0% had chronic kidney disease (eGFR <60 mL/min) and the mean Mehran score of the population was 10. Inorganic nitrate treatment significantly reduced CIN rates (9.1%) vs. placebo (30.5%, P < .001). This difference persisted after adjustment for baseline creatinine and diabetes status (odds ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.34). Secondary outcomes were improved with inorganic nitrate, with lower rates of procedural myocardial infarction (2.7% vs. 12.5%, P = .003), improved 3-month renal function (between-group change in eGFR 5.17, 95% CI 2.94-7.39) and reduced 1-year MACE (9.1% vs. 18.1%, P = .001) vs. placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients at risk of renal injury undergoing coronary angiography for ACS, a short (5 day) course of once-daily inorganic nitrate reduced CIN, improved kidney outcomes at 3 months, and MACE events at 1 year compared to placebo.

The effect of CTCA guided selective invasive graft assessment on coronary angiographic parameters and outcomes: Insights from the BYPASS-CTCA trial.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography cardiac angiography (CTCA) is recommended for the evaluation of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The BYPASS-CTCA study demonstrated that CTCA prior to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in CABG patients leads to significant reductions in procedure time and contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), alongside improved patient satisfaction. However, whether CTCA information was used to facilitate selective graft cannulation at ICA was not protocol mandated. In this post-hoc analysis we investigated the influence of CTCA facilitated selective graft assessment on angiographic parameters and study endpoints. METHODS: BYPASS-CTCA was a randomized controlled trial in which patients with previous CABG referred for ICA were randomized to undergo CTCA prior to ICA, or ICA alone. In this post-hoc analysis we assessed the impact of selective ICA (grafts not invasively cannulated based on the CTCA result) following CTCA versus non-selective ICA (imaging all grafts irrespective of CTCA findings). The primary endpoints were ICA procedural duration, incidence of CIN, and patient satisfaction post-ICA. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of procedural complications and 1-year major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: In the CTCA cohort (n â€‹= â€‹343), 214 (62.4%) patients had selective coronary angiography performed, whereas 129 (37.6%) patients had non-selective ICA. Procedure times were significantly reduced in the selective CTCA â€‹+ â€‹ICA group compared to the non-selective CTCA â€‹+ â€‹ICA group (-5.82min, 95% CI -7.99 to -3.65, p â€‹< â€‹0.001) along with reduction of CIN (1.5% vs 5.8%, OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.98). No difference was seen in patient satisfaction with the ICA, however procedural complications (0.9% vs 4.7%, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.87) and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (13.1% vs 20.9%, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96) were significantly lower in the selective group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prior CABG, CTCA guided selective angiographic assessment of bypass grafts is associated with improved procedural parameters, lower complication rates and better 12-month outcomes. Taken in addition to the main findings of the BYPASS-CTCA trial, these results suggest a synergistic approach between CTCA and ICA should be considered in this patient group. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03736018.

Sex-related differences in patients presenting with heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of all CS cases. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence on sex-related differences in HF-CS, especially regarding use of treatment and mortality risk in women vs. men. This study aimed to investigate potential differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and mortality between women and men with HF-CS. METHODS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS (without acute myocardial infarction) from 16 tertiary-care centers in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. Logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess differences in clinical presentation, use of treatments, and 30-day mortality in women vs. men with HF-CS. RESULTS: N = 1030 patients with HF-CS were analyzed, of whom 290 (28.2%) were women. Compared to men, women were more likely to be older, less likely to have a known history of heart failure or cardiovascular risk factors, and lower rates of highly depressed left ventricular ejection fraction and renal dysfunction. Nevertheless, CS severity as well as use of treatments were comparable, and female sex was not independently associated with 30-day mortality (53.0% vs. 50.8%; adjusted HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.19). CONCLUSIONS: In this large HF-CS registry, sex disparities in risk factors and clinical presentation were observed. Despite these differences, the use of treatments was comparable, and both sexes exhibited similarly high mortality rates. Further research is necessary to evaluate if sex-tailored treatment, accounting for the differences in cardiovascular risk factors and clinical presentation, might improve outcomes in HF-CS.

Clinical presentation, shock severity and mortality in patients with de novo versus acute-on-chronic heart failure-related cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for a significant proportion of CS cases. Whether patients with de novo HF and those with acute-on-chronic HF in CS differ in clinical characteristics and outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in clinical presentation and mortality between patients with de novo and acute-on-chronic HF-CS. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this international observational study, patients with HF-CS from 16 tertiary care centres in five countries were enrolled between 2010 and 2021. To investigate differences in clinical presentation and 30-day mortality, adjusted logistic/Cox regression models were fitted. Patients (n = 1030) with HF-CS were analysed, of whom 486 (47.2%) presented with de novo HF-CS and 544 (52.8%) with acute-on-chronic HF-CS. Traditional markers of CS severity (e.g. blood pressure, heart rate and lactate) as well as use of treatments were comparable between groups. However, patients with acute-on-chronic HF-CS were more likely to have a higher CS severity and also a higher mortality risk, after adjusting for relevant confounders (de novo HF 45.5%, acute-on-chronic HF 55.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In this large HF-CS cohort, acute-on-chronic HF-CS was associated with more severe CS and higher mortality risk compared to de novo HF-CS, although traditional markers of CS severity and use of treatments were comparable. These findings highlight the vast heterogeneity of patients with HF-CS, emphasize that HF chronicity is a relevant disease modifier in CS, and indicate that future clinical trials should account for this.

Association between left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality and use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Currently, use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS) is predominantly guided by shock-specific markers, and not by markers of cardiac function. We hypothesise that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) can identify patients with a higher likelihood to benefit from MCS and thus help to optimise their expected benefit. METHODS: Patients with non-ischaemic CS and available data on LVEF from 16 tertiary-care centres in five countries were analysed. Cox regression models were fitted to evaluate the association between LVEF and mortality, as well as the interaction between LVEF, MCS use and mortality. RESULTS: N = 807 patients were analysed: mean age 63 [interquartile range (IQR) 51.5-72.0] years, 601 (74.5%) male, lactate 4.9 (IQR 2.6-8.5) mmol/l, LVEF 20 (IQR 15-30) %. Lower LVEF was more frequent amongst patients with more severe CS, and MCS was more likely used in patients with lower LVEF. There was no association between LVEF and 30-day mortality risk in the overall study cohort. However, there was a significant interaction between MCS use and LVEF, indicating a lower 30-day mortality risk with MCS use in patients with LVEF ≤ 20% (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.02 for LVEF ≤ 20% vs. hazard ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.85-2.01 for LVEF > 20%, interaction-p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study may indicate a lower mortality risk with MCS use only in patients with severely reduced LVEF. This may propose the inclusion of LVEF as an adjunctive parameter for MCS decision-making in non-ischaemic CS, aiming to optimise the benefit-risk ratio.

Computed Tomography Cardiac Angiography Before Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients With Previous Bypass Surgery: The BYPASS-CTCA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting often require invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, for these patients, the procedure is technically more challenging and has a higher risk of complications. Observational studies suggest that computed tomography cardiac angiography (CTCA) may facilitate ICA in this group, but this has not been tested in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This study was a single-center, open-label randomized controlled trial assessing the benefit of adjunctive CTCA in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting referred for ICA. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo CTCA before ICA or ICA alone. The co-primary end points were procedural duration of the ICA (defined as the interval between local anesthesia administration for obtaining vascular access and removal of the last catheter), patient satisfaction after ICA using a validated questionnaire, and the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy. Linear regression was used for procedural duration and patient satisfaction score; contrast-induced nephropathy was analyzed using logistic regression. We applied the Bonferroni correction, with P<0.017 considered significant and 98.33% CIs presented. Secondary end points included incidence of procedural complications and 1-year major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 688 patients were randomized with a median follow-up of 1.0 years. The mean age was 69.8±10.4 years, 108 (15.7%) were women, 402 (58.4%) were White, and there was a high burden of comorbidity (85.3% hypertension and 53.8% diabetes). The median time from coronary artery bypass grafting to angiography was 12.0 years, and there were a median of 3 (interquartile range, 2 to 3) grafts per participant. Procedure duration of the ICA was significantly shorter in the CTCA+ICA group (CTCA+ICA, 18.6±9.5 minutes versus ICA alone, 39.5±16.9 minutes [98.33% CI, -23.5 to -18.4]; P<0.001), alongside improved mean ICA satisfaction scores (1=very good to 5=very poor; -1.1 difference [98.33% CI, -1.2 to -0.9]; P<0.001), and reduced incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (3.4% versus 27.9%; odds ratio, 0.09 [98.33% CI, 0.04-0.2]; P<0.001). Procedural complications (2.3% versus 10.8%; odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.1-0.4]; P<0.001) and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (16.0% versus 29.4%; hazard ratio, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.6]; P<0.001) were also lower in the CTCA+ICA group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting, CTCA before ICA leads to reductions in procedure time and contrast-induced nephropathy, with improved patient satisfaction. CTCA before ICA should be considered in this group of patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03736018.

Use of mechanical circulatory support in patients with non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock.

AIMS: Despite its high incidence and mortality risk, there is no evidence-based treatment for non-ischaemic cardiogenic shock (CS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for non-ischaemic CS treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicentre, international, retrospective study, data from 890 patients with non-ischaemic CS, defined as CS due to severe de-novo or acute-on-chronic heart failure with no need for urgent revascularization, treated with or without active MCS, were collected. The association between active MCS use and the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality was assessed in a 1:1 propensity-matched cohort. MCS was used in 386 (43%) patients. Patients treated with MCS presented with more severe CS (37% vs. 23% deteriorating CS, 30% vs. 25% in extremis CS) and had a lower left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline (21% vs. 25%). After matching, 267 patients treated with MCS were compared with 267 patients treated without MCS. In the matched cohort, MCS use was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.59-0.97). This finding was consistent through all tested subgroups except when CS severity was considered, indicating risk reduction especially in patients with deteriorating CS. However, complications occurred more frequently in patients with MCS; e.g. severe bleeding (16.5% vs. 6.4%) and access-site related ischaemia (6.7% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: In patients with non-ischaemic CS, MCS use was associated with lower 30-day mortality as compared to medical therapy only, but also with more complications. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings.

Therapeutic Implications of COVID-19 for the Interventional Cardiologist.

Although COVID-19 is viewed primarily as a respiratory disease, cardiovascular risk factors and disease are prevalent among infected patients and are associated with worse outcomes. In addition, among multiple extra-pulmonary manifestations, there has been an increasing recognition of specific cardiovascular complications of COVID-19. Despite this, in the initial stages of the pandemic there was evidence of a reduction in patients presenting to acute cardiovascular services. In this masterclass review, with the aid of 2 exemplar cases, we will focus on the important therapeutic implications of COVID-19 for interventional cardiologists. We summarize the existing evidence base regarding the varied cardiovascular presentations seen in COVID-19 positive patients and the prognostic importance and potential mechanisms of acute myocardial injury in this setting. Importantly, through the use of a systematic review of the literature, we focus our discussion on the observed higher rates of coronary thrombus burden in patients with COVID-19 and acute coronary syndromes.

Validation of the CREST score for predicting circulatory-aetiology death in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without STEMI.

AIMS: The CREST tool was recently developed to stratify the risk of circulatory-aetiology death (CED) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients without ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to validate the CREST score using an external cohort and determine whether it could be improved by the addition of serum lactate on admission. METHODS: The study involved the retrospective analysis of consecutive patients admitted to a single tertiary centre with OHCA of presumed cardiac origin over a 51-month period. The CREST score was calculated by attributing points to the following variables: Coronary artery disease (CAD), non-shockable Rhythm, Ejection fraction <30%, cardiogenic Shock at presentation and ischaemic Time ≥25 minutes. The primary endpoint was CED vs neurological aetiology death (NED) or survival. RESULTS: Of 500 patients admitted with OHCA, 211 did not meet criteria for STEMI and were included. 115 patients died in hospital (71 NED, 44 CED). When analysed individually, CED was associated with all CREST variables other than a previous diagnosis of CAD. The CREST score accurately predicted CED with excellent discrimination (C-statistic 0.880, 95% CI 0.813-0.946) and calibration (Hosmer and Lemeshow P=0.948). Although an admission lactate ≥7 mmol/L also predicted CED, its addition to the CREST score (the C-AREST score) did not significantly improve the predictive ability (CS 0.885, 0.815-0.954, HS P=0.942, X2 difference in -2 log likelihood =0.326, P=0.850). CONCLUSION: Our study is the first to independently validate the CREST score for predicting CED in patients presenting with OHCA without STEMI. Addition of lactate on admission did not improve its predictive ability.

An observational study assessing the impact of a cardiac arrest centre on patient outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major cause of death worldwide. Recent guidelines recommend the centralisation of OHCA services in cardiac arrest centres to improve outcomes. In 2015, two major tertiary cardiac centres in London merged to form a large dedicated tertiary cardiac centre. This study aimed to compare the short-term mortality of patients admitted with an OHCA before-and-after the merger of services had taken place and admission criteria were relaxed, which led to managing OHCA in higher volume. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the data of OHCA patients pre- and post-merger. Baseline demographic and medical characteristics were recorded, along with factors relating to the cardiac arrest. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: OHCA patients (N =728; 267 pre- and 461 post-merger) between 2013 and 2018 were analysed. Patients admitted pre-merger were older (65.0 vs. 62.4 years, p=0.027), otherwise there were similar baseline demographic and peri-arrest characteristics. There was a greater proportion of non-acute coronary syndrome-related OHCA admission post-merger (10.1% vs. 23.4%, p=0.0001) and a corresponding decrease in those admitted with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (80.2% vs. 57.0%, p=0.0001) and those treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (78.8% vs. 54.0%, p=0.0001). Despite this, in-hospital mortality was lower post-merger (63.7% vs. 44.3%, p=0.0001), which persisted after adjustment for demographic and arrest-related characteristics using stepwise logistic regression (p=0.036) between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite an increase in non-acute coronary syndrome-related OHCA cases, the formation of a centralised invasive heart centre was associated with improved survival in OHCA patients. This suggests there may be a benefit of a cardiac arrest centre model of care.

Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation and Eculizumab: Atypical treatments for typical haemolytic uraemic syndrome.

A 19-year-old female with no medical history presented with bloody diarrhoea. Investigations revealed an acute kidney injury, thrombocytopenia and microangiopathic haemolysis. A diagnosis of haemolytic uraemic syndrome secondary to Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli 055 was confirmed and supportive therapy commenced in the intensive therapy unit. On day 11 of her admission, she rapidly deteriorated with evidence of refractory cardiogenic shock and neurological involvement, both features associated with a poor prognosis. Cross-specialty collaboration prompted a trial of veno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation and Eculizumab, a complement inhibitor normally reserved for atypical haemolytic uraemic syndrome, as a bridge to organ recovery. To our knowledge, herein we present the first adult patient with haemolytic uraemic syndrome induced cardiogenic shock successfully supported to cardiac recovery with extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. The potential role for Eculizumab in Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli/typical haemolytic uraemic syndrome is also discussed.

Animation-supported consent for urgent angiography and angioplasty: a service improvement initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Patient understanding of angiography and angioplasty is often incomplete at the time of consent. Language barriers and time constraints are significant obstacles, particularly in the urgent setting. We introduced digital animations to support consent and assessed the effect on patient understanding. METHODS: Multi-language animations explaining angiography and angioplasty (www.explainmyprocedure.com/heart) were introduced at nine district hospitals for patients with acute coronary syndrome before urgent transfer to a cardiac centre for their procedure. Reported understanding of the reason for transfer, the procedure, its benefits and risks in 100 consecutive patients were recorded before introduction of the animations into practice (no animation group) and in 100 consecutive patients after their introduction (animation group). Patient understanding in the two groups was compared. RESULTS: Following introduction, 83/100 patients reported they had watched the animation before inter-hospital transfer (3 declined and 14 were overlooked). The proportions of patients who understood the reason for transfer, the procedure, its benefits and risks in the no animation group were 58%, 38%, 25% and 7% and in the animation group, 85%, 81%, 73% and 61%, respectively. The relative improvement (ratio of proportions) was 1.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.8), 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8), 2.9 (2.0 to 4.2) and 8.7 (4.2 to 18.1), respectively (p<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: Use of animations explaining angiography and angioplasty is feasible before urgent inter-hospital transfer and was associated with substantial improvement in reported understanding of the procedure, its risks and its benefits. The approach is not limited to cardiology and has the potential to be applied to all specialties in medicine.