Post-infarction ventricular septal defect: percutaneous or surgical management in the UK national registry.

AIMS: Post-infarction ventricular septal defect (PIVSD) is a mechanical complication of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with a poor prognosis. Surgical repair is the mainstay of treatment, although percutaneous closure is increasingly undertaken. METHODS AND RESUTS: Patients treated with surgical or percutaneous repair of PIVSD (2010-2021) were identified at 16 UK centres. Case note review was undertaken. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Patient groups were allocated based upon initial management (percutaneous or surgical). Three-hundred sixty-two patients received 416 procedures (131 percutaneous, 231 surgery). 16.1% of percutaneous patients subsequently had surgery. 7.8% of surgical patients subsequently had percutaneous treatment. Times from AMI to treatment were similar [percutaneous 9 (6-14) vs. surgical 9 (4-22) days, P = 0.18]. Surgical patients were more likely to have cardiogenic shock (62.8% vs. 51.9%, P = 0.044). Percutaneous patients were substantially older [72 (64-77) vs. 67 (61-73) years, P < 0.001] and more likely to be discussed in a heart team setting. There was no difference in long-term mortality between patients (61.1% vs. 53.7%, P = 0.17). In-hospital mortality was lower in the surgical group (55.0% vs. 44.2%, P = 0.048) with no difference in mortality after hospital discharge (P = 0.65). Cardiogenic shock [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.97 (95% confidence interval 1.37-2.84), P < 0.001), percutaneous approach [aHR 1.44 (1.01-2.05), P = 0.042], and number of vessels with coronary artery disease [aHR 1.22 (1.01-1.47), P = 0.043] were independently associated with long-term mortality. CONCLUSION: Surgical and percutaneous repair are viable options for management of PIVSD. There was no difference in post-discharge long-term mortality between patients, although in-hospital mortality was lower for surgery.

Treatment and Care of Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction-What Challenges Remain after Three Decades of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) has revolutionized the prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and is the gold standard treatment. As a result of its success, the number of pPCI centres has expanded worldwide. Despite decades of advancements, clinical outcomes in STEMI patients have plateaued. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock remain a major cause of high in-hospital mortality, whilst the growing burden of heart failure in long-term STEMI survivors presents a growing problem. Many elements aiming to optimize STEMI treatment are still subject to debate or lack sufficient evidence. This review provides an overview of the most contentious current issues in pPCI in STEMI patients, with an emphasis on unresolved questions and persistent challenges.

In patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting is semi-skeletonization superior to pedicled harvesting of the left internal mammary artery?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was, 'in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting is semi-skeletonized harvesting superior to pedicled harvesting of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) in terms of conduit length, flow, rate of sternal wound infections and post-operative bleeding?'. Altogether, 235 papers were found using the reported search, of which 5 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. Three studies were cohort studies and 2 were randomized controlled trials. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. One randomized controlled trial showed superiority with semi-skeletonized harvesting in terms of conduit length (P < 0.001), flow (P = 0.004) and diastolic filling (P = 0.005). Three studies included data on surgical wound infections/mediastinitis, all of which reported n = 0. One randomized controlled trial and 3 cohort studies reported that semi-skeletonized harvesting reduced postoperative bleeding. No studies reported a statistically significant difference in operative time. This review suggests that semi-skeletonized harvesting could possibly be associated with favourable outcomes when compared to pedicled harvesting with respect to graft length and flow, and lower postoperative bleeding, without increasing operative time; although there is insufficient data to compare sternal wound infections or long-term outcomes. In conclusion, the limited evidence base prevents robust informed decision-making when comparing both techniques.