Meta-Analysis Comparing Distal Radial Versus Traditional Radial Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Angiography.

Data comparing outcomes of distal radial (DR) and traditional radial (TR) access of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limited. Online databases including Medline and Cochrane Central databases were explored to identify studies that compared DR and TR access for PCI. The primary outcome was the rate of radial artery occlusion (RAO) and access failure. Secondary outcomes included access site hematoma, access site bleeding, access site pain, radial artery spasm, radial artery dissection, and crossover. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) with a random-effect model, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p <0.05 were used for statistical significance. Metaregression was performed for 16 studies with 9,973 (DR 4,750 and TR 5,523) patients were included. Compared with TR, DR was associated with lower risk of RAO (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.90, I2 = 42.6%, p = 0.02). RAO was lower in DR undergoing coronary angiography rather than PCI. Access failure rate (OR 1.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.55, I2 87.36%, p = 0.24), access site hematoma (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.83, I2 0%, p = 0.68), access site pain (OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.28 to 17.38, I2 0%, p = 0.45), access site bleeding (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.16 to 7.62, I2 85.11%, p = 0.91), radial artery spasm (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.29, I2 0%, p = 0.35), radial artery dissection (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.84, I2 0%, p = 0.45), and crossover (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.70, I2 25.48%, p = 0.33) did not show any significant difference. DR was associated with lower incidence RAO when compared with TR, whereas other procedural-related complications were similar.

Effect of Location on Treatment and Outcomes of Cardiac Arrest Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction in England & Wales.

We investigated the incidence, management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients according to cardiac arrest location. Patients admitted with a diagnosis of AMI between January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2017 from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) were studied. We used logistic regression models to evaluate predictors of the clinical outcomes and treatment strategy. The study population consisted of 580,796 patients admitted with AMI stratified into three groups: out of hospital cardiac arrest (OOHCA) (16,278[2.8%]), in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) (21,073[3.7%]), plus a reference group consisting of those without cardiac arrest (non-cardiac arrest (543,418[93.5%]). IHCA declined steadily (from 666 per 1000 in 2010 to 477 per 1000 AMI with cardiac arrest admissions in 2017) with a commensurate rise in OOHCA (from 344 per 1000 to 533 per 1000 AMI with cardiac arrest admissions). Coronary angiography utilization (OOHCA 81.1% vs IHCA 60.3% vs non-cardiac arrest 70.4%, p < 0.001) and PCI (OOHCA 40% vs IHCA 32.8% vs non-cardiac arrest 45.2%, p < 0.001) were higher in OOHCA. In-hospital mortality odds were greatest for IHCA (OR 35.3, 95% CI 33.4-37.2) compared to OOHCA (OR 12.7, 95% CI 11.9-13.6), with the worse outcomes seen in patients on medical wards (OR 97.37, 95% CI 87.02-108.95) and the best outcomes seen in the emergency department (OR 8.35, 95% CI 7.32-9.53). In conclusion, outcomes of AMI complicated by cardiac arrest depended on cardiac arrest location, especially the outcomes of the IHCA.

Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis (from a Nationwide Cohort).

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at an increased risk of ischemic heart disease. However, there is limited evidence on how their outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compare with those without IBD. All PCI-related hospitalizations from the National Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2015 were included, stratified into 3 groups: no-IBD, Crohn's disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis (UC). We assessed the association between IBD subtypes and in-hospital outcomes. A total of 6,689,292 PCI procedures were analyzed, of which 0.3% (n = 18,910) had an IBD diagnosis. The prevalence of IBD increased from 0.2% (2004) to 0.4% (2015). Patients with IBD were less likely to have conventional cardiovascular risk factors and more likely to undergo PCI for an acute indication, and to receive bare metal stents. In comparison to patients without IBD, those with IBD had reduced or similar adjusted odds ratios (OR) of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (CD OR 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.78; UC OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85), mortality (CD: OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.11; UC OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.45) or acute cerebrovascular accident (CD: OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89; UC: OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15). However, IBD patients had an increased odds for major bleeding (CD: OR 1.42 95% CI 1.23 to 1.63, and UC: OR 1.35 95% CI 1.16 to 1.58). In summary, IBD is associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital post-PCI complications other than major bleeding that was significantly higher in this group. Long term follow-up is required to evaluate the safety of PCI in IBD patients from both bleeding and ischemic perspectives.