Coronary artery disease and outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis is a life-limiting condition for which transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established therapy. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently found in this patient group and optimal management in these patients remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine the association of coexistent CAD on mortality and hospital readmission in patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, we examined patients who underwent TAVI and segregated them by the presence of obstructive epicardial CAD. The primary outcome was 3-year mortality with secondary outcomes being readmission for (1) all-causes, (2) a MACE (Major Adverse Cardiovascular Event) composite endpoint and (3) acute coronary syndrome. Subsidiary outcomes included patient angina and breathlessness scores. RESULTS: 898 patients underwent TAVI, of which 488 (54.3%) had unobstructed coronary arteries and 410 (45.7%) had obstructive CAD. Overall, n=298 (33.2%) patients experienced the primary mortality endpoint with no significant difference when stratified according to CAD (n=160 (32.9%) vs n=136 (33.2%), HR 0.98, CI 0.78 to 1.24). After multivariate analysis, the presence of CAD had no effect on the primary outcome (HR 0.98, CI 0.68 to 1.40). There was no significant difference in readmission for any cause (n=181, 37.1% (CAD) vs n=169, 41.2% (no CAD), p=0.23), including no significant difference on readmission for MACE (n=48, 9.8% (CAD) vs n=45, 11.0% (no CAD), p=0.11). CAD at the time of TAVI also did not alter breathlessness or angina scores before/after TAVI (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Coexistent CAD had no significant association with mortality, any-cause readmission or symptoms for patients undergoing TAVI in our cohort.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock despite the lack of evidence from adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Three trials reported so far were underpowered to detect a survival benefit; we therefore conducted an individual patient-based meta-analysis to assess the effect of VA-ECMO on 30-day death rate. METHODS: Randomised clinical trials comparing early routine use of VA-ECMO versus optimal medical therapy alone in patients presenting with infarct-related cardiogenic shock were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and trial registries until June 12, 2023. Trials were included if at least all-cause death rate 30 days after in-hospital randomisation was reported and trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data). Odds ratios (ORs) as primary outcome measure were pooled using logistic regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023431258). FINDINGS: Four trials (n=567 patients; 284 VA-ECMO, 283 control) were identified and included. Overall, there was no significant reduction of 30-day death rate with the early use of VA-ECMO (OR 0·93; 95% CI 0·66-1·29). Complication rates were higher with VA-ECMO for major bleeding (OR 2·44; 95% CI 1·55-3·84) and peripheral ischaemic vascular complications (OR 3·53; 95% CI 1·70-7·34). Prespecified subgroup analyses were consistent and did not show any benefit for VA-ECMO (pinteraction ≥0·079). INTERPRETATION: VA-ECMO did not reduce 30-day death rate compared with medical therapy alone in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock, and an increase in major bleeding and vascular complications was observed. A careful review of the indication for VA-ECMO in this setting is warranted. FUNDING: Foundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or standard care in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: the multicentre, randomised EURO SHOCK trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CGS) occurs in 10% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI), with in-hospital mortality rates of 40-50% despite revascularisation. AIMS: The EURO SHOCK trial aimed to determine if early use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) could improve outcomes in patients with persistent CGS following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: This multicentre, pan-European trial randomised patients with persistent CGS 30 minutes after PPCI of the culprit lesion to receive either VA-ECMO or continue with standard therapy. The primary outcome measure was 30-day all-cause mortality in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints included 12-month all-cause mortality and 12-month composite of all-cause mortality or rehospitalisation due to heart failure. RESULTS: Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was stopped before completion of recruitment, after randomisation of 35 patients (standard therapy n=18, VA-ECMO n=17). Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 43.8% of patients randomised to VA-ECMO and in 61.1% of patients randomised to standard therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-1.45; p=0.22). One-year all-cause mortality was 51.8% in the VA-ECMO group and 81.5% in the standard therapy arm (HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.21-1.26; p=0.14). Vascular and bleeding complications occurred more often in the VA-ECMO arm (21.4% vs 0% and 35.7% vs 5.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited number of patients recruited to the trial, no definite conclusions could be drawn from the available data. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of randomising patients with CGS complicating acute MI but also illustrates the challenges. We hope these data will inspire and inform the design of future large-scale trials.

Very early invasive angiography versus standard of care in higher-risk non-ST elevation myocardial infarction: study protocol for the prospective multicentre randomised controlled RAPID N-STEMI trial.

BACKGROUND: There are a paucity of randomised data on the optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in higher-risk patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (N-STEMI). International guideline recommendations for early ICA are primarily based on retrospective subgroup analyses of neutral trials. AIMS: The RAPID N-STEMI trial aims to determine whether very early percutaneous revascularisation improves clinical outcomes as compared with a standard of care strategy in higher-risk N-STEMI patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RAPID N-STEMI is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, randomised-controlled, pragmatic strategy trial. Higher-risk N-STEMI patients, as defined by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score ≥118, or >90 with at least one additional high-risk feature, were randomised to either: very early ICA±revascularisation or standard of care timing of ICA±revascularisation. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants with at least one of the following events (all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and hospital admission for heart failure) at 12 months. Key secondary outcomes include major bleeding and stroke. A hypothesis generating cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) substudy will provide mechanistic data on infarct size, myocardial salvage and residual ischaemia post percutaneous coronary intervention. On 7 April 2021, the sponsor discontinued enrolment due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lower than expected event rates. 425 patients were enrolled, and 61 patients underwent CMR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been reviewed and approved by the East of England Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (18/EE/0222). The study results will be submitted for publication within 6 months of completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03707314; Pre-results.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Same-Sitting and Staged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of Non-Culprit Artery for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Coronary Disease.

Recent trials and meta-analysis have indicated that complete revascularization (CR) of multivessel coronary disease is beneficial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared to culprit-only intervention. However, the optimal timing of CR remains unclear. We aimed to analyze the optimal timing of CR in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease by performing an updated network meta-analysis using the recent largest randomized controlled trial. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through October 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing CR and culprit-only revascularization. A random-effect network meta-analysis comparing three arms (same-sitting [during the index procedure] CR versus staged CR versus culprit-only) and 4 arms (same-sitting CR versus staged CR [in-hospital] versus staged CR [out-hospital] versus culprit-only) were performed. Eleven studies with a total of 7,015 patients were included in our analysis. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.05), cardiovascular death (HR 0.69, 95%CI 0.35-1.33), myocardial infarction (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.37-1.16), and revascularization (HR 1.05, 95%CI 0.70-1.58) between same-sitting CR and staged CR. When staged CR was further divided into staged CR during the hospitalization and after discharge, there was no significant difference in these outcomes between staged CR (in-hospital) and staged CR (out-hospital). In conclusion, in patients with multivessel disease presenting with STEMI, complete revascularization at any timing, including same-sitting, staged in-hospital, and staged out-hospital, may have similar benefits.

Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with cardiogenic shock: rationale and design of the randomised, multicentre, open-label EURO SHOCK trial.

AIMS: Cardiogenic shock (CGS) occurs in 6-10% of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Mortality has fallen over time from 80% to approximately 50% consequent on acute revascularisation but has plateaued since the 1990s. Once established, patients with CGS develop adverse compensatory mechanisms that contribute to the downward spiral towards death, which becomes difficult to reverse. We aimed to test in a robust, prospective, randomised controlled trial whether early support with veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) provides clinical benefit by improving mortality and morbidity. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EURO SHOCK trial will test the benefit or otherwise of mechanical cardiac support using VA-ECMO, initiated early after acute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for CGS. The trial sets out to randomise 428 patients with CGS complicating ACS, following primary PCI (P-PCI), to either very early ECMO plus standard pharmacotherapy, or standard pharmacotherapy alone. It will be conducted in 39 European centres. The primary endpoint is 30-day all-cause mortality with key secondary endpoints: 1) 12-month all-cause mortality or admission for heart failure, 2) 12-month all-cause mortality, 3) 12-month admission for heart failure. Cost-effectiveness analysis (including quality of life measures) will be embedded. Mechanistic and hypothesis-generating substudies will be undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: The EURO SHOCK trial will determine whether early initiation of VA-ECMO in patients presenting with ACS-CGS persisting after PCI improves mortality and morbidity.

Double-Kissing Nanocrush for Bifurcation Lesions: Development, Bioengineering, Fluid Dynamics, and Initial Clinical Testing.

BACKGROUND: When possible, a single-stent technique to treat coronary bifurcation disease is preferable. However, when 2 stents are required, there is scope to improve on existing techniques. The crush technique has already been improved with the introduction of double-kissing (DK) and minicrush. We sought to refine and simplify the minicrush technique, retaining its advantages while avoiding its disadvantages, by developing a DK nanocrush technique. METHODS: The DK nanocrush method allows complete lesion coverage of a bifurcation lesion without excessive metal layers. This is achieved by positioning the side branch (SB) stent with minimal protrusion into the main branch (MB), implantation of the SB stent with an undeployed balloon in the MB, immediate kissing-balloon inflation with formation of a minimal neocarina, stenting the MB, recrossing the proximal part of the SB without crossing a double metal layer, and final kissing. We demonstrate this technique with benchtop implantation, microscopic computed tomographic reconstruction, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modelling, and clinically with the use of angiographic and intravascular imaging. RESULTS: The DK nanocrush was practically feasible and resulted in full ostial coverage. CFD analysis demonstrated minimally disturbed blood flow. The technique was successfully utilised in 9 patients with bifurcation lesions with excellent angiographic outcomes and no adverse events over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The DK nanocrush technique may represent the ultimate refinement of the original crush technique with a number of practical and theoretical advantages. It remains to be tested against other bifurcation techniques in prospective trials.

Long-Term Follow-Up of Complete Versus Lesion-Only Revascularization in STEMI and Multivessel Disease: The CvLPRIT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown that complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) with multivessel disease results in lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (all-cause death, MI, ischemia-driven revascularization, heart failure). OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine whether the benefits of complete revascularization are sustained long-term and their impact on hard endpoints. METHODS: CvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Trial) was a randomized trial of complete inpatient revascularization versus infarct-related artery revascularization only at the index admission. Randomized patients have been followed longer-term. The components of the original primary endpoint were collected from physical and electronic patient records, and from local databases for all readmissions. RESULTS: The median follow-up (achieved in >90% patients) from randomization to first event or last follow-up was 5.6 years (0.0 to 7.3 years). The primary MACE endpoint rate at this time point was 24.0% in the complete revascularization group but 37.7% of the infarct-related artery-only group (hazard ratio: 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.37 to 0.87; p = 0.0079). The composite endpoint of all-cause death/MI was 10.0% in the complete revascularization group versus 18.5% in the infarct-related artery-only group (hazard ratio: 0.47; 95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.89; p = 0.0175). In a landmark analysis (from 12 months to final follow-up), there was no significant difference between MACE, death/MI, and individual components of the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of the CvLPRIT trial shows that the significantly lower rate of MACE in the complete revascularization group, previously seen at 12 months, is sustained to a median of 5.6 years. A significant difference in composite all-cause death/MI favoring the complete revascularization was also observed. (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Trial; ISRCTN70913605).

Outcomes After Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting According to Lesion Site: Results From the EXCEL Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to determine the extent to which the site of the left main coronary artery (LM) lesion (distal bifurcation versus ostial/shaft) influences the outcomes of revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). BACKGROUND: Among 1,905 patients with LM disease and site-assessed SYNTAX scores of <32 randomized in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, revascularization with PCI and CABG resulted in similar rates of the composite primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 3 years. METHODS: Outcomes from the randomized EXCEL trial were analyzed according to the presence of angiographic core laboratory-determined diameter stenosis ≥50% involving the distal LM bifurcation (n = 1,559; 84.2%) versus disease isolated to the LM ostium or shaft (n = 293; 15.8%). RESULTS: At 3 years, there were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke for treatment of both distal LM bifurcation disease (15.6% vs. 14.9%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 1.42; p = 0.61) and isolated LM ostial/shaft disease (12.4% vs. 13.5%, OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.81; p = 0.77) (pinteraction = 0.65). However, at 3 years, ischemia-driven revascularization occurred more frequently after PCI than CABG in patients with LM distal bifurcation disease (13.0% vs. 7.2%, OR: 2.00, 95% CI: 1.41 to 2.85; p = 0.0001), but were not significantly different in patients with disease only at the LM ostium or shaft (9.7% vs. 8.4%, OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.52 to 2.69; p = 0.68) (pinteraction = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, PCI and CABG resulted in comparable rates of death, MI, or stroke at 3 years for treatment of LM disease, including those with distal LM bifurcation disease. Repeat revascularization rates during follow-up after PCI compared with CABG were greater for lesions in the distal LM bifurcation but were similar for disease isolated to the LM ostium or shaft.

A risk scoring system to predict coronary stent thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: Stent thrombosis (ST) is a potentially life-threatening complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to develop a scoring system to predict the risk of ST following PCI. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Odds ratios (ORs) for risk factors associated with ST were identified from a meta-analysis based on a systematic literature review, and through consensus expert opinion (Delphi-RAND method). The combined ORs were used to calculate risk scores for acute (within 24 hours), early (within 30 days) and late (31 days to 1 year) ST. Risk scores were validated against patient-level data from the TRITON-TIMI 38 study. Twenty risk factors were identified. RESULTS: The most highly predictive factor for early and late ST was "incomplete duration of dual antiplatelet therapy". Derived total risk scores ranged from 0 to 22 for acute and early ST, and from 0 to 20 for late ST. Increasing scores were associated with an increasing risk of ST when applied to trial data. Model discrimination was 0.60 (p = .0028), 0.67 (p < .0001) and 0.66 (p < .0001) for acute, early and late ST respectively, indicating good discriminatory power for predicting ST. Key limitations included a lack of published data on acute ST, resulting in a risk score for this time point being based predominantly on expert opinion, and that it was not possible to map all risk factors to variables collected in the TRITON-TIMI 38 study. CONCLUSION: Our weighted scoring system may help to stratify ST risk and individualize antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI.

A propensity matched comparison of return to work and quality of life after stenting or coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine (1) return to work (RTW) rates, (2) long-term employment (>12 months postprocedure), (3) time taken to RTW, and (4) quality of life (QoL), in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Questionnaires regarding RTW were sent to 689 PCI and 169 CABG patients who underwent PCI or CABG at University Hospitals of Leicester Trust, UK, from May 2012 to May 2013. QoL was also measured using the European QoL 5-dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D). Responses from patients employed preprocedure were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. Propensity score-matching was further used to compare similar patient populations receiving PCI or CABG. RESULTS: The response rate was 38% (235 PCI and 88 CABG patients). 241 respondents (75%) were employed preprocedure. Of these 162 (93%) PCI and 51 (77%) CABG patients returned to work, whereas 147 (85%) PCI and 41 (62%) CABG patients were still employed at >12 months postprocedure. After propensity analysis, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG patients in RTW, long-term employment, nor QoL. The median time taken to RTW was 6 weeks after PCI and 13 weeks after CABG (p=0.001). The effect remained significant after multivariate analysis (p=0.001) and propensity analysis (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this first propensity score-matched study comparing RTW and QoL after PCI or CABG strict propensity matching indicates that RTW or QoL, is similar for PCI or CABG, albeit the number of matched pairs was small. There are differences, however, in delay in RTW.

Management of Multivessel Disease and Cardiogenic Shock.

Cardiogenic shock represents a state of low cardiac output and systemic hypoperfusion resulting in insufficient end-organ perfusion and consequent multiorgan failure. The main cause of this complication in the context of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction is left ventricular dysfunction secondary to poor myocardial perfusion. In over 50% of cardiogenic shock cases, there is evidence of significant coronary stenosis within noninfarct-related arteries. Persistent ischemia in the noninfarct territory may contribute to ongoing hypotension. Currently, ESC and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines advocate complete revascularization in the context of multivessel coronary artery disease in the context of cardiogenic shock, although the evidence is weak.

Management of Multivessel Coronary Disease in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Primary PCI of infarct-related arteries is the preferred reperfusion strategy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Up to 40 % of such patients demonstrate evidence of multivessel, non-infarct-related artery coronary disease. Previous non-randomised observational studies and their associated meta-analyses have suggested that in such cases only the culprit infarct-related artery (IRA) lesion should be treated. However, recent randomised controlled trials have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes with lower major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rates when complete revascularisation is undertaken either at index primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) or during index admission. These trials suggest that current guidelines pertaining to treatment of non-infarct-related artery (N-IRA) lesions in STEMI patients with multivessel disease may need to be reconsidered depending on future trials. However, issues remain around timing of N-IRA intervention, the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular imaging to guide intervention in N-IRA lesions and the need to demonstrate reductions in hard clinical endpoints (death and MI) after complete revascularisation; these issues will need to be addressed through future trials. Clinicians must judge on the currently available data, whether it is still safer to leave important stenosis in N-IRA untreated.

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Multivessel Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Current guidelines recommend against revascularization of the noninfarct artery during the index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in hemodynamically stable patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This was based largely on observational studies with few data coming from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Recently, several small-to-moderate sized RCTs have provided data, suggesting that a multivessel revascularization approach may be appropriate. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV PCI) versus culprit vessel-only revascularization (COR) during primary PCI in patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary disease (MVCD). We searched Medline, PubMed, and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing MV PCI versus COR in patients with STEMI and MVCD. The incidence of all-cause death, cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and revascularization during follow-up were extracted. Four RCTs fit our primary selection criteria. Among these, 566 patients underwent MV PCI (either at the time of the primary PCI or as a staged procedure) and 478 patients underwent COR. During long-term follow-up (range 1 to 2.5 years), combined data indicated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36 to 0.92, p = 0.02) and in cardiac death (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.73, p = 0.004) with MV PCI. In addition, there was a significantly lower risk of recurrent myocardial infarction (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75; p = 0.004) and future revascularization (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.52; p <0.00001). In conclusion, from the RCT data, MV PCI appears to improve outcomes in patients with STEMI and MVCD.

Driving and arrhythmia: a review of scientific basis for international guidelines.

In patients with arrhythmias, the most feared complication while driving is of driver incapacity resulting in a road traffic accident. Patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) may suffer incapacity as a result of device therapy itself. The aim of this review article was to examine the types of arrhythmia that occur while driving, the impact of arrhythmia on driving as well as evidence to support that driving itself can precipitate arrhythmias. We will also review the postulated mechanisms by which driving can precipitate arrhythmias. Finally, we will compare guidelines from the USA, Europe, and UK in fitness to drive in patients with arrhythmias and ICDs.

Malabsorption causing failure of pharmacological therapy in the treatment of atrial fibrillation.

We report a case of atrial fibrillation (AF) refractory to medical management. The patient had previously undergone extensive gastric and small bowel surgery. Subsequently we demonstrated malabsorption of administered anti-arrhythmics as the cause of her refractory AF. Malabsorption, even to lesser degrees and from other causes should be considered in cases of unexplained therapeutic refractoriness.