Documento de posición para la mejora en la reperfusión del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del ST en Latinoamérica / Position statement for improvement in reperfusion of ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Latin America

Resumen El tratamiento del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST tiene barreras dependiendo de la región geográfica. La angioplastia coronaria primaria es el tratamiento de elección, siempre y cuando sea realizada dentro de tiempo y por operadores experimentados. Sin embargo, cuando no está disponible, la administración de fibrinólisis y el envío para angioplastia de rescate, en caso de reperfusión negativa, es la mejor estrategia. De la misma manera, la angioplastia coronaria, como parte de una estrategia farmacoinvasiva, es la mejor alternativa cuando hay reperfusión positiva. El desarrollo de redes de tratamiento del infarto aumenta el número de pacientes reperfundidos dentro de los tiempos recomendados y mejora los desenlaces. En América Latina, los programas nacionales para el tratamiento del infarto deben centrarse en mejorar los resultados y el éxito a largo plazo depende de trabajar hacia objetivos definidos y obtener métricas de rendimiento, por lo tanto, estos deben desarrollar métricas para cuantificar su desempeño. El siguiente documento discute todas estas alternativas y sugiere oportunidades de mejora.

Abstract The treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction has barriers depending on the geographic region. Primary coronary angioplasty is the treatment of choice, if it is performed on time and by experienced operators. However, when it is not available, the administration of fibrinolysis and referral for rescue angioplasty, in case of negative reperfusion, is the best strategy. In the same way, coronary angioplasty, as part of a pharmacoinvasive strategy, is the best alternative when there is positive reperfusion. The development of infarct treatment networks increases the number of patients reperfused within the recommended times and improves outcomes. In Latin America, national myocardial infarction treatment programs should focus on improving outcomes, and long-term success depends on working toward defined goals and enhancing functionality, therefore programs should develop capacity to measure their performance. The following document discusses all of these alternatives and suggests opportunities for improvement.

[Position statement for improvement in reperfusion of ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Latin America]. / Documento de posición para la mejora en la reperfusión del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del ST en Latinoamérica.

The treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction has barriers depending on the geographic region. Primary coronary angioplasty is the treatment of choice, if it is performed on time and by experienced operators. However, when it is not available, the administration of fibrinolysis and referral for rescue angioplasty, in case of negative reperfusion, is the best strategy. In the same way, coronary angioplasty, as part of a pharmacoinvasive strategy, is the best alternative when there is positive reperfusion. The development of infarct treatment networks increases the number of patients reperfused within the recommended times and improves outcomes. In Latin America, national myocardial infarction treatment programs should focus on improving outcomes, and long-term success depends on working toward defined goals and enhancing functionality, therefore programs should develop capacity to measure their performance. The following document discusses all of these alternatives and suggests opportunities for improvement.

El tratamiento del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST tiene barreras dependiendo de la región geográfica. La angioplastia coronaria primaria es el tratamiento de elección, siempre y cuando sea realizada dentro de tiempo y por operadores experimentados. Sin embargo, cuando no está disponible, la administración de fibrinólisis y el envío para angioplastia de rescate, en caso de reperfusión negativa, es la mejor estrategia. De la misma manera, la angioplastia coronaria, como parte de una estrategia farmacoinvasiva, es la mejor alternativa cuando hay reperfusión positiva. El desarrollo de redes de tratamiento del infarto aumenta el número de pacientes reperfundidos dentro de los tiempos recomendados y mejora los desenlaces. En América Latina, los programas nacionales para el tratamiento del infarto deben centrarse en mejorar los resultados y el éxito a largo plazo depende de trabajar hacia objetivos definidos y obtener métricas de rendimiento, por lo tanto, estos deben desarrollar métricas para cuantificar su desempeño. El siguiente documento discute todas estas alternativas y sugiere oportunidades de mejora.

Herramientas para la toma de decisiones en pacientes con enfermedad de múltiples vasos / Tools for Decision Making in Patients with Multivessel Disease

RESUMEN La decisión sobre la mejor estrategia de revascularización para los pacientes con enfermedad de múltiples vasos se ha tornado una tarea compleja a medida que la angioplastia coronaria ha mejorado sus resultados. En la siguiente revisión nos propusimos evaluar las variables que en nuestra experiencia definen el beneficio de una técnica sobre la otra, entendiendo que de esta manera la decisión del médico tratante se hace más sencilla y objetiva. Por otro lado, y festejando el saludable protagonismo que se le da al paciente, creemos que esta evaluación permite ofrecer argumentos sólidos para ayudarlo en la toma de la decisión.

ABSTRACT The decision on the best revascularization strategy for patients with multivessel disease has become a complex task as coronary angioplasty has improved its results. In the following review, we set out to evaluate the variables that, in our experience, define the benefit of one technique over the other, understanding that in this way the treating physician's decision will become simpler and more objective. On the other hand, and celebrating the healthy prominence given to patients, we believe that this evaluation allows solid arguments to help them in decision making.

[Use of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with coronary syndrome]. / Uso de anticoagulantes parenterales en pacientes con síndromes coronarios.

Anticoagulant treatment, together with antiplatelet therapy, plays an important role in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. Its use is associated with a reduction in new ischemic events, stent thrombosis, and lower mortality. However, in clinical practice there is great heterogeneity in its use, leading to suboptimal results in treatment. This paper conducts a narrative review on the use of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with acute coronary syndromes, depending on the clinical scenario, as well as the revascularization strategy used and the bleeding risk. The different anticoagulant schemes available in acute coronary syndromes with and without segment ST elevation are addressed, based on the updated evidence. Finally, evidence-based strategies for risk stratification for bleeding and therapeutic management are developed.

El tratamiento anticoagulante, en conjunto con la anti agregación, cumple un rol de suma importancia en el tratamiento de los síndromes coronarios agudos. Su uso está asociado a reducción de nuevos eventos isquémicos, trombosis del stent e incluso menor mortalidad. No obstante, en la práctica clínica existe una gran heterogeneidad en su utilización, llevando a resultados subóptimos en el tratamiento. Este trabajo ofrece una revisión narrativa sobre el uso de anticoagulantes parenterales en pacientes con síndromes coronarios agudos, dependiendo del escenario clínico, así como también de la estrategia de revascularización implementada y el riesgo hemorrágico. Se abordan los diferentes esquemas anticoagulantes disponibles en síndromes coronarios agudos con y sin elevación del segmento ST, basados en la evidencia actualizada hasta la fecha. Finalmente, se desarrollan herramientas para la estratificación del riesgo de sangrado y su manejo terapéutico.

Uso de anticoagulantes parenterales en pacientes con síndromes coronarios / Use of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with coro nary syndromes

Resumen El tratamiento anticoagulante, en conjunto con la anti agregación, cumple un rol de suma importancia en el tratamiento de los síndromes coronarios agudos. Su uso está asociado a reducción de nuevos eventos isquémicos, trombosis del stent e incluso menor morta lidad. No obstante, en la práctica clínica existe una gran heterogeneidad en su utilización, llevando a resultados subóptimos en el tratamiento. Este trabajo ofrece una revisión narrativa sobre el uso de anticoagulantes parenterales en pacientes con sín dromes coronarios agudos, dependiendo del escenario clínico, así como también de la estrategia de revascula rización implementada y el riesgo hemorrágico. Se abordan los diferentes esquemas anticoagulantes disponibles en síndromes coronarios agudos con y sin elevación del segmento ST, basados en la evidencia ac tualizada hasta la fecha. Finalmente, se desarrollan herramientas para la es tratificación del riesgo de sangrado y su manejo tera péutico.

Abstract Anticoagulant treatment, together with antiplatelet therapy, plays an important role in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. Its use is associated with a reduction in new ischemic events, stent thrombosis, and lower mortality. However, in clinical practice there is great heterogene ity in its use, leading to suboptimal results in treatment. This paper conducts a narrative review on the use of parenteral anticoagulants in patients with acute coronary syndromes, depending on the clinical scenario, as well as the revascularization strategy used and the bleeding risk. The different anticoagulant schemes available in acute coronary syndromes with and without segment ST elevation are addressed, based on the updated evidence. Finally, evidence-based strategies for risk stratifi cation for bleeding and therapeutic management are developed.

Impacto de un Heart Team en pacientes con estenosis aórtica candidatos a reemplazo percutáneo / Impact of a Heart Team in patients with aortic stenosis who are candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

RESUMEN La difusión del reemplazo valvular aórtico percutáneo (TAVI) en la estenosis aórtica (EAo) generó la creación de un Heart Team (HT), para elegir el mejor tratamiento. Existen pocos reportes sobre su utilidad. Objetivos: analizar los resultados del tratamiento de los pacientes con EAo evaluados por un HT durante 10 años Material y métodos: Inclusión consecutiva de todos los pacientes con EAo candidatos a TAVI entre enero del 2012 y julio del 2021 para seleccionar el mejor tratamiento, incluyendo además Cirugía de reemplazo valvular aórtico (CRVA) y Tratamiento médico conservador (TMC). Resultados: De 841 pacientes, se asignaron a TAVI 455 (53%), CRVA 213 (24%) y TMC 183 (23%). El porcentaje asignado a TAVI aumentó con el tiempo de 48 a 62% (p < 0,05). Los pacientes que fueron a TAVI, con respecto a los enviados a CRVA, eran mayores (86 ± 7 vs 83 ± 7 años), con mayor EUROSCORE II (6,2, IC95% 5,7-6,6 vs 5,6, IC95% 4,4-6,5) y más frágiles (1,62 ± 1 vs 0,91 ± 1), en todos los casos p <0,01. La sobrevida actuarial (IC 95%) a 1 y a 2 años fue, para TAVI 88% (84-91%) y 82% (77-86%), para CRVA 83% (76-88%) y 78% (70-84%) y para TMC 70% (60-87%) y 59% (48-68%) respectivamente (p <0,001). Conclusiones: Durante los primeros 10 años de establecido un Heart Team para la toma de decisiones en EAo, se asignaron a TAVI aproximadamente la mitad y el resto se asignó por mitades a cirugía u observación. La sobrevida de los pacientes intervenidos fue similar a 2 años y mayor que la de los no intervenidos.

ABSTRACT As transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis (AS) became widespread, the need for a Heart Team (HT) arose to choose the best treatment. There are few reports regarding its usefulness. Objectives: To analyze treatment outcomes in patients with AS evaluated by a HT for 10 years. Methods: Consecutive enrollment of all patients with AS who were candidates for TAVI between January 2012 and July 2021 to choose the best treatment, including surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and conservative medical management (CMM). Results: Out of 841 patients, 455 were assigned to TAVI (53%), 213 to SAVR (24%), and 183 to CMM (23%). The percentage assigned to TAVI has increased from 48% to 62% over time (p <0.05). Patients who underwent TAVI versus those who underwent SAVR were older (86 ± 7 vs. 83 ± 7 years), had a higher EUROSCORE II (6.2, 95% CI 5.7-6.6 vs. 5.6; 95% CI 4.4-6.5) and were frailer (1.62 ± 1 vs. 0.91 ± 1), in all cases p <0.01. Actuarial survival (95% CI) at 1 and 2 years was 88% (84-91%) and 82% (77-86%) for TAVI, 83% (76-88%) and 78% (70-84%) for SAVR, and 70% (60-87%) and 59% (48-68%) for CMM, respectively (p <0.001). Conclusions: For the first 10 years after a Heart Team was established for AS decision-making, approximately half of the patients were assigned to TAVI, and the rest were equally assigned in halves to either surgery or observation. Survival for patients who received interventions was similar at 2 years and higher than in those who did not.

Clinical outcomes of TAVI with the Myval balloon-expandable valve for non-calcified aortic regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in non-calcified aortic regurgitation (NCAR) is an off-label procedure. The balloon-expandable Myval includes extra-large sizes (30.5 mm and 32 mm) of interest in this setting. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of Myval in NCAR. METHODS: This was an international, multicentre, observational study that enrolled all consecutive patients with symptomatic severe NCAR undergoing TAVR with the Myval device. The images were centrally analysed. RESULTS: A total of 113 patients were recruited, 64.6% were men, the mean age was 78.4±7.5 years, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 2.7±1.7%. Aortic root dilatation was present in 59.3% of patients, 7.1% were bicuspid, and the mean annular area was 638.6±106.0 mm2. The annular area was beyond the recommended range for extra-large sizes in 2.6% of cases, and additional volume was added in 92% (median 4 cc, up to 9 cc). The extra-large sizes were used in 95 patients (84.1%), and the mean oversizing was 17.9±11.0%. The technical success rate was 94.7%; the rate of residual ≥moderate aortic regurgitation was 8.9%, and the pacemaker rate was 22.2%. There were no cases of annular rupture, cardiac tamponade, or aortic dissection, but in 4 patients (3.5%) valve embolisation occurred (1 antegrade and 3 ventricular), all in cases with a tapered left ventricle outflow tract (p=0.007). Thirty-day and 1-year mortality were 5.3% and 9.7%, respectively. Technical success was associated with better survival (97.1% vs 72.7%; p=0.012), and valve embolisation was the main determinant of mortality (p=0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Myval is a feasible and safe option for selected non-operable patients with NCAR and demonstrated good midterm outcomes and lack of impact of oversizing on device durability.

No-reflow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an angiographic core laboratory analysis of the TOTAL Trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy to prevent no-reflow in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. AIMS: We aimed to examine the effect of thrombectomy on the outcome of no-reflow in key subgroups and the adverse clinical outcomes associated with no-reflow. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the TOTAL Trial, a randomised trial of 10,732 patients comparing thrombectomy versus PCI alone. This analysis utilised the angiographic data of 1,800 randomly selected patients. RESULTS: No-reflow was diagnosed in 196 of 1,800 eligible patients (10.9%). No-reflow occurred in 95/891 (10.7%) patients randomised to thrombectomy compared with 101/909 (11.1%) in the PCI-alone arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.28; p-value=0.76). In the subgroup of patients who underwent direct stenting, those randomised to thrombectomy compared with PCI alone experienced less no-reflow (19/371 [5.1%] vs 21/216 [9.7%], OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.96). In patients who did not undergo direct stenting, there was no difference between the groups (64/504 [12.7%] vs 75/686 [10.9%)], OR 1.18, 95% CI: 0.82-1.69; interaction p-value=0.02). No-reflow patients had a significantly increased risk of experiencing the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA Class IV heart failure) at 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio 1.70, 95% CI: 1.13-2.56; p-value=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI treated by PCI, thrombectomy did not reduce no-reflow in all patients but may be synergistic with direct stenting. No-reflow is associated with increased adverse clinical outcomes.

Optimización del tiempo puerta-balón mediante la implementación de un programa de mejora de procesos. Resultados a 5 años de funcionamiento / Optimization of Door-to-Balloon Time Implementing a Process Improvement Program. Results after 5 Years

RESUMEN Introducción : de estar disponible, la angioplastia primaria (ATCp), en tiempos adecuados y en centros con experiencia, es la mejor estrategia de reperfusión para el infarto agudo de miocardio con supradesnivel del segmento ST (IAMCEST). El tiempo puerta-balón (TPB) es una expresión de eficiencia operativa de la institución que realiza la ATCp, con impacto en la evolución del paciente. El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar los resultados a largo plazo de un programa de mejora continua del proceso TPB. Material y métodos : se incluyeron en forma prospectiva y consecutiva pacientes con diagnóstico de IAMCEST sometidos a ATCp desde enero de 2015 a mayo de 2022. La población se dividió en dos períodos: período de implementación inmediata y período de seguimiento a largo plazo. Resultados : se ingresaron 671 pacientes en forma prospectiva y consecutiva. En el primer período, de implementación, (P1), se incluyeron 91 pacientes, y en el segundo período, de seguimiento del programa, (P2), 580 pacientes. La mediana (rango intercuartilo, RIC) de TPB fue de 46 min (29-59) en P1 vs 42 min(25-52) en el P2, p = 0,055. En el segundo período se evi denció una reducción de las preactivaciones (P1 54,1% vs P2 30%,p = 0,02) y los procedimientos on hours (42% en p1 vs 30% en P2, p = 0,029). Conclusión : el registro mostró el mantenimiento de los buenos resultados a largo plazo a pesar de una reducción de las preactivaciones y los procedimientos on hours.

ABSTRACT Background : If available, primary transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), performed timely and in experienced sites, is the best reperfusion strategy for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The door-to-balloon (DTB) time expresses operational efficiency of the site in charge of the PTCA, with an impact on patient's progress. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term results of a continuous improvement program for the DTB time process. Methods : Patients diagnosed with STEMI who had undergone PTCA from January 2015 to May 2022 were prospectively and consecutively enrolled. The population was divided in two periods: an immediate implementation period and a long-term follow-up period. Results : 671 patients were prospectively and consecutively enrolled. During the implementation period (P1) 91 patients were enrolled, and 580 during the program follow-up (P2). The median (interquartile range, IQR) DTB time was 46 min (29-59) for P1 vs 42 min(25-52) for P2, p=0.055). The second period showed a reduction in pre-activations (P1 54,1% vs P2 30% p=0.02) and on-hour procedures (42% for P1 versus 30% for P2, p=0.029). Conclusion : The registry showed long-term maintenance of good results, despite reduced reactivations and on-hour procedures.

Validation of the OPEN-CLEAN Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Perforation Score in a Multicenter Registry.

Coronary artery perforation is one of the most common and feared complications of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated the utility of the recently presented OPEN-CLEAN (Coronary artery bypass graft, Length of occlusion, Ejection fraction, Age, calcificatioN) perforation score in an independent multicenter CTO PCI dataset. Of the 2,270 patients who underwent CTO PCI at 7 centers, 150 (6.6%) suffered coronary artery perforation. Patients with perforations were older (69 ± 10 vs 65 ± 10, p <0.001), more likely to be women (89% vs 82%, p = 0.010), more likely to have history of previous coronary artery bypass graft (38% vs 20%, p <0.001), and unfavorable angiographic characteristics such as blunt stump (64% vs 42%, p <0.001), proximal cap ambiguity (51% vs 33%, p <0.001), and moderate-severe calcification (57% vs 43%, p = 0.001). Technical success was lower in patients with perforations (69% vs 85%, p <0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the OPEN-CLEAN perforation risk model was 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.79), with good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.72). We found that the CTO PCI perforation risk increased with higher OPEN-CLEAN scores: 3.5% (score 0 to 1), 3.1% (score 2), 5.3% (score 3), 7.1% (score 4), 11.5% (score 5), 19.8% (score 6 to 7). In conclusion, given its good performance and ease of preprocedural calculation, the OPEN-CLEAN perforation score appears to be useful for quantifying the perforation risk for patients who underwent CTO PCI.

Recent Developments and Current Status of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Practice in Latin America - the WRITTEN LATAM Study. / Evolução e Estado Atual das Práticas de Implante Transcateter de Válvula Aórtica na América Latina ­ Estudo WRITTEN LATAM.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a worldwide adopted procedure with rapidly evolving practices. Regional and temporal variations are expected to be found. OBJECTIVE: To compare TAVR practice in Latin America with that around the world and to assess its changes in Latin America from 2015 to 2020. METHODS: A survey was applied to global TAVR centers between March and September 2015, and again to Latin-American centers between July 2019 and January 2020. The survey consisted of questions addressing: i) center's general information; ii) pre-TAVR evaluation; iii) procedural techniques; iv) post-TAVR management; v) follow-up. Answers from the 2015 survey of Latin-American centers (LATAM15) were compared with those of other centers around the world (WORLD15) and with the 2020 updated Latin-American survey (LATAM20). A 5% level of significance was adopted for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 250 centers participated in the 2015 survey (LATAM15=29; WORLD15=221) and 46 in the LATAM20. Combined centers experience accounted for 73 707 procedures, with WORLD15 centers performing, on average, 6- and 3-times more procedures than LATAM15 and LATAM20 centers, respectively. LATAM centers performed less minimalistic TAVR than WORLD15 centers, but there was a significant increase in less invasive procedures after 5 years in Latin-American centers. For postprocedural care, a lower period of telemetry and maintenance of temporary pacing wire, along with less utilization of dual antiplatelet therapy was observed in LATAM20 centers. CONCLUSION: Despite still having a much lower number of procedures, many aspects of TAVR practice in Latin-American centers have evolved in recent years, followingthe trend observed in developed country centers.

FUNDAMENTO: Implante transcateter de valva aórtica (TAVI) é um procedimento adotado em todo o mundo e suas práticas evoluem rapidamente. Variações regionais e temporais são esperadas. OBJETIVO: Comparar a prática de TAVI na América Latina com aquela no resto do mundo e avaliar suas mudanças na América Latina de 2015 a 2020. MÉTODO: A pesquisa foi realizada em centros de TAVI em todo o mundo entre março e setembro de 2015, e novamente nos centros latino-americanos entre julho de 2019 e janeiro de 2020. As seguintes questões foram abordadas: i) informação geral sobre os centros; ii) avaliação pré-TAVI; iii) técnicas do procedimento; iv) conduta pós-TAVI; v) seguimento. As respostas da pesquisa dos centros latino-americanos em 2015 (LATAM15) foram comparadas àquelas dos centros no resto do mundo (WORLD15) e ainda àquelas da pesquisa dos centros latino-americanos de 2020 (LATAM20). Adotou-se o nível de significância de 5% na análise estatística. RESULTADOS: 250 centros participaram da pesquisa em 2015 (LATAM15=29; WORLD15=221) e 46 na avaliação LATAM20. No total, foram 73.707 procedimentos, sendo que os centros WORLD15 realizaram, em média, 6 e 3 vezes mais procedimentos do que os centros LATAM15 e LATAM20, respectivamente. Os centros latino-americanos realizaram menor número de TAVI minimalista do que os do restante do mundo, mas aumentaram significativamente os procedimentos menos invasivos após 5 anos. Quanto à assistência pós-procedimento, observaram-se menor tempo de telemetria e de manutenção do marca-passo temporário, além de menor uso de terapia dupla antiplaquetária nos centros LATAM20. CONCLUSÃO: A despeito do volume de procedimentos ainda significativamente menor, muitos aspectos da prática de TAVI nos centros latino-americanos evoluíram recentemente, acompanhando a tendência dos centros dos países desenvolvidos.

Evolução e Estado Atual das Práticas de Implante Transcateter de Válvula Aórtica na América Latina - Estudo WRITTEN LATAM / Recent Developments and Current Status of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Practice in Latin America - the WRITTEN LATAM Study

Resumo Fundamento: Implante transcateter de valva aórtica (TAVI) é um procedimento adotado em todo o mundo e suas práticas evoluem rapidamente. Variações regionais e temporais são esperadas. Objetivo: Comparar a prática de TAVI na América Latina com aquela no resto do mundo e avaliar suas mudanças na América Latina de 2015 a 2020. Método: A pesquisa foi realizada em centros de TAVI em todo o mundo entre março e setembro de 2015, e novamente nos centros latino-americanos entre julho de 2019 e janeiro de 2020. As seguintes questões foram abordadas: i) informação geral sobre os centros; ii) avaliação pré-TAVI; iii) técnicas do procedimento; iv) conduta pós-TAVI; v) seguimento. As respostas da pesquisa dos centros latino-americanos em 2015 (LATAM15) foram comparadas àquelas dos centros no resto do mundo (WORLD15) e ainda àquelas da pesquisa dos centros latino-americanos de 2020 (LATAM20). Adotou-se o nível de significância de 5% na análise estatística. Resultados: 250 centros participaram da pesquisa em 2015 (LATAM15=29; WORLD15=221) e 46 na avaliação LATAM20. No total, foram 73.707 procedimentos, sendo que os centros WORLD15 realizaram, em média, 6 e 3 vezes mais procedimentos do que os centros LATAM15 e LATAM20, respectivamente. Os centros latino-americanos realizaram menor número de TAVI minimalista do que os do restante do mundo, mas aumentaram significativamente os procedimentos menos invasivos após 5 anos. Quanto à assistência pós-procedimento, observaram-se menor tempo de telemetria e de manutenção do marca-passo temporário, além de menor uso de terapia dupla antiplaquetária nos centros LATAM20. Conclusão: A despeito do volume de procedimentos ainda significativamente menor, muitos aspectos da prática de TAVI nos centros latino-americanos evoluíram recentemente, acompanhando a tendência dos centros dos países desenvolvidos.

Abstract Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a worldwide adopted procedure with rapidly evolving practices. Regional and temporal variations are expected to be found. Objective: To compare TAVR practice in Latin America with that around the world and to assess its changes in Latin America from 2015 to 2020. Methods: A survey was applied to global TAVR centers between March and September 2015, and again to Latin-American centers between July 2019 and January 2020. The survey consisted of questions addressing: i) center's general information; ii) pre-TAVR evaluation; iii) procedural techniques; iv) post-TAVR management; v) follow-up. Answers from the 2015 survey of Latin-American centers (LATAM15) were compared with those of other centers around the world (WORLD15) and with the 2020 updated Latin-American survey (LATAM20). A 5% level of significance was adopted for statistical analysis. Results: 250 centers participated in the 2015 survey (LATAM15=29; WORLD15=221) and 46 in the LATAM20. Combined centers experience accounted for 73 707 procedures, with WORLD15 centers performing, on average, 6- and 3-times more procedures than LATAM15 and LATAM20 centers, respectively. LATAM centers performed less minimalistic TAVR than WORLD15 centers, but there was a significant increase in less invasive procedures after 5 years in Latin-American centers. For postprocedural care, a lower period of telemetry and maintenance of temporary pacing wire, along with less utilization of dual antiplatelet therapy was observed in LATAM20 centers. Conclusion: Despite still having a much lower number of procedures, many aspects of TAVR practice in Latin-American centers have evolved in recent years, followingthe trend observed in developed country centers.

Outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Insights from the LATAM CTO registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with and without prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. BACKGROUND: Data on the outcomes of CTO PCI in patients with versus without CABG remains limited and with scarce representation from developing regions like Latin America. METHODS: We evaluated patients undergoing CTO PCI in 42 centers participating in the LATAM CTO registry between 2008 and 2020. Statistical analyses were stratified according to CABG status. The outcomes of interest were technical and procedural success and in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). RESULTS: A total of 1662 patients were included (n = 1411 [84.9%] no-CABG and n = 251 [15.1%] prior-CABG). Compared with no-CABG, those with prior-CABG were older (67 ± 11 vs. 64 ± 11 years; p < 0.001), had more comorbidities and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (52.8 ± 12.8% vs. 54.4 ± 11.7%; p = 0.042). Anatomic complexity was higher in the prior-CABG group (J-CTO score 2.46 ± 1.19 vs. 2.10 ± 1.22; p < 0.001; PROGRESS CTO score 1.28 ± 0.89 vs. 0.91 ± 0.85; p < 0.001). Absence of CABG was associated with lower risk of technical and procedural failure (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.43-0.85 and OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.83, respectively). No significant differences in the incidence of in-hospital MACCE (3.8% no-CABG vs. 4.4% prior-CABG; p = 0.766) were observed between groups. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary multicenter CTO-PCI registry from Latin America, prior-CABG patients had more comorbidities, higher anatomical complexity, lower success, and similar in-hospital adverse event rates compared with no-CABG patients.

Effect of Colchicine vs Usual Care Alone on Intubation and 28-Day Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021. Interventions: Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine. Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days. Results: A total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%) in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with usual care, colchicine did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04328480.