Orbital atherectomy safety and efficacy: A comparative analysis of ostial versus non-ostial calcified coronary lesions.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of coronary orbital atherectomy (OA) for treatment of ostial lesions are not yet fully established. We sought to evaluate (OA) treatment of severely calcified ostial and non-ostial lesions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of subjects treated with OA for severely calcified ostial and non-ostial lesions, at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami Beach, Florida (MSMCMB) from January 2014 to September 2020, was completed. Study baseline characteristics, lesion and vessel characteristics, procedural outcomes, and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients that underwent PCI with OA were identified. The majority of patients (81.9 %) had non-ostial lesions, while 16.6 % had ostial lesions (of which 2.8 % classified as aorto-ostial) and 1.5 % had unknown lesion anatomy. The mean age of the overall cohort was 74.0 ± 9.3 years, and 63.5 % were male. All patients received drug-eluting stent (DES) placement, and the overall freedom from MACE was 98.5 %, with no significant difference observed between the ostial and non-ostial groups. The freedom from cardiac death and MI was also similar between the two groups. There were low rates of bleeding complications and severe angiographic complications, and no persistent slow flow/no reflow was reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated no significant differences in in-hospital MACE outcomes between patients with ostial versus non-ostial lesions, indicating that OA is a safe and effective treatment option for both lesion types, including those classified as aorto-ostial.

Outcomes of Standard Permanent Active Fixation Leads for Temporary Pacing.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the performance of Temporary Pacing via an Externalized Active-Fixation (TPEAF) lead. BACKGROUND: The incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections is increasing, which necessitates the need for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Pacemaker-dependent patients require temporary pacing during the guideline-recommended waiting period before reimplantation. Data regarding safety and efficacy of TPEAF leads are very limited. METHODS: We evaluated patients implanted with TPEAF leads post-TLE at our center between April 2004 and December 2017. RESULTS: TPEAF leads were placed in 158 patients. The mean age was 74 ± 11 years. The median duration of the temporary lead was 6 days (range 1 to 29). There were 4 procedural complications (2.5% incidence): 1 patient had cardiac arrest from hyperkalemia, 2 developed cardiac tamponade, and 1 had profuse bleeding from the entry point of the leads. There were 13 complications post-implantation (8.2% incidence): 8 lead dislodgments, 1 elevated pacing threshold, 2 vegetations on the temporary lead, 1 pneumothorax, and 1 loss of capture due to the generator "safety switch." All dislodgements occurred within 24 h, except 1 on day 3. Sixteen patients died during the hospital stay: 10 due to septic shock, 2 due to hyperkalemic cardiac arrest, 3 due to ventricular tachycardia, and 1 due to a massive cerebrovascular accident. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TPEAF leads is safe and efficacious in pacemaker-dependent patients post-TLE. Dislodgement can occur within the first 24 h. The presence of persistent fever and positive blood cultures should raise concern for vegetation on the temporary lead.