Management of a complex acetabular fracture following defibrillation for ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest.

In this case report, we describe the first case of a patient who sustained a complex acetabular fracture following defibrillation for ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest in the context of acute myocardial infarction. The patient was unable to undergo definitive open reduction internal fixation surgery due to the need to continue dual antiplatelet therapy following coronary stenting of his occluded left anterior descending artery. Following multidisciplinary discussions, a staged approach was opted for, with percutaneous closed reduction screw fixation of the fracture performed while the patient was maintained on dual antiplatelet therapy. The patient was discharged with a plan to perform definitive surgical management when safe to discontinue dual antiplatelets. This is the first confirmed case of defibrillation causing an acetabular fracture. We discuss the various aspects that need to be considered when patients are being worked up for surgery while on dual antiplatelet therapy.

COVID-19 and its impact on the cardiovascular system.

OBJECTIVES: The clinical impact of SARS-CoV-2 has varied across countries with varying cardiovascular manifestations. We review the cardiac presentations, in-hospital outcomes and development of cardiovascular complications in the initial cohort of SARS-CoV-2 positive patients at Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, UK. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 498 COVID-19 positive adult admissions to our institute from 7 March to 7 April 2020. Patient data were collected for baseline demographics, comorbidities and in-hospital outcomes, especially relating to cardiovascular intervention. RESULTS: Mean age was 67.4±16.1 years and 62.2% (n=310) were male. 64.1% (n=319) of our cohort had underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD) with 53.4% (n=266) having hypertension. 43.2%(n=215) developed acute myocardial injury. Mortality was significantly increased in those patients with myocardial injury (47.4% vs 18.4%, p<0.001). Only four COVID-19 patients had invasive coronary angiography, two underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and one required a permanent pacemaker implantation. 7.0% (n=35) of patients had an inpatient echocardiogram. Acute myocardial injury (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.40, p=0.005) and history of hypertension (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.55, p=0.049) approximately doubled the odds of in-hospital mortality in patients admitted with COVID-19 after other variables had been controlled for. CONCLUSION: Hypertension, pre-existing CVD and acute myocardial injury were associated with increased in-hospital mortality in our cohort of COVID-19 patients. However, only a low number of patients required invasive cardiac intervention.

Absence of differential effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel maintenance dose on endothelial function in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Endothelial function may be improved by ticagrelor through adenosine-mediated mechanisms. We aimed to assess the effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel on endothelial function in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, crossover study, 22 stable CAD patients under prasugrel 10 mg once daily maintenance dose (MD) for at least 3 months were randomized to either ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or prasugrel 10 mg once daily for 15 days with a direct treatment-crossover for another 15 days. Endothelial function was assessed by peripheral arterial tonometry (EndoPAT 2000 system, Itamar Medical, Caesarea, Israel) at Day 0 (randomization), Day 15, and Day 30. Reactive Hyperemia Index (RHI) was calculated by using an automated software, and endothelial dysfunction (ED) was defined as RHI <1.67. RHI at the end of the two treatment periods did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel MD treatments. Least squares estimates (95% confidence interval) were 1.78 (1.58-1.99) versus 1.88 (1.67-2.08), with a fixed estimate of -0.099 (95% CI: -0.45 to 0.25) for the difference between them (p = 0.5). ED rate did not differ significantly between ticagrelor and prasugrel (45.5% vs 45.5%, p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: In CAD patients, we have failed to find evidence of alteration of endothelial function following ticagrelor compared to prasugrel MD treatment, as assessed by peripheral arterial tonometry. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV UNIQUE IDENTIFIER: NCT01957540.

Lack of Evidence for Deterioration in Endothelial Function Following Ticagrelor Treatment Cessation.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor may exert pleiotropic actions, beyond platelet inhibition, which are possibly adenosine-mediated. It has been suggested that in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) ticagrelor may influence endothelial function. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the possibility of endothelial function deterioration following ticagrelor treatment cessation. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study, in stable CAD patients with prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome manifested 1 year earlier, under ticagrelor maintenance dose (90 mg bid) and due to discontinue ticagrelor. Endothelial function was assessed by Peripheral Arterial Tonometry (EndoPat 2000 system, Itamar Medical, Caesarea, Israel) immediately after receiving the last tablet of ticagrelor (Day 0) and at Day 2 and Day 5 post-ticagrelor cessation. Reactive hyperaemia index (RHI) was calculated by automated software and endothelial dysfunction (ED) was defined as a RHI <1.67. RESULTS: We identified 30 eligible patients with endothelial function assessment pre- and post-ticagrelor cessation (86.7% men, 13.3% with diabetes and 33.3% current smokers; mean age: 63.6±11.5 years). The study's primary endpoint of RHI at Day 5 did not differ significantly compared with RHI at Day 0, 1.69 (1.45-2.23) vs 1.81 (1.59-2.13). ED rate did not differ significantly between Day 5 and Day 0, 40 vs 33.3%, p=0.8, respectively. No differences in RHI or ED rate were observed between Day 2 and Day 0, 1.64 (1.54-2.04) vs 1.8 1(1.59-2.13), p=0.3 and 53.3 vs 33.3%, p=0.2, respectively. In stable CAD patients there is no evidence of deterioration in endothelial function after discontinuing ticagrelor.