Mechanical Circulatory Support for High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will focus on the indications of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and then analyze in detail all MCS devices available to the operator, evaluating their mechanisms of action, pros and cons, contraindications, and clinical data supporting their use. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the last decade, the interventional cardiology arena has witnessed an increase in the complexity profile of the patients and lesions treated in the catheterization laboratory. Patients with significant comorbidity burden, left ventricular dysfunction, impaired hemodynamics, and/or complex coronary anatomy often cannot tolerate extensive percutaneous revascularization. Therefore, a variety of MCS devices have been developed and adopted for high-risk PCI. Despite the variety of MCS available to date, a detailed characterization of the patient requiring MCS is still lacking. A precise selection of patients who can benefit from MCS support during high-risk PCI and the choice of the most appropriate MCS device in each case are imperative to provide extensive revascularization and improve patient outcomes. Several new devices are being tested in early feasibility studies and randomized clinical trials and the experience gained in this context will allow us to provide precise answers to these questions in the coming years.

Contemporary use of anticoagulation in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: a review.

Anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary interventions has a rich history that has been shaped by several key clinical trials. The correct choice of anticoagulation during interventions can maximize patient outcomes and ensure a safe procedure. However, in some specific situations, anticoagulation may not be required at all. In this review article, we review the significant clinical trials and current guidelines regarding the use of anticoagulation in the catheterization laboratory and discuss the unique pharmacological aspects of the most commonly used agents, with an emphasis on the specific pharmacokinetic parameters that dictate how these agents are used and monitored. Finally, we discussed the future directions in anticoagulation therapy in coronary artery disease. This review serves as a robust synopsis of the clinical data for practicing clinicians and fellows in training.

Cardiovascular failure and cardiogenic shock.

Cardiovascular system failure is commonly faced by the intensivist. Heart failure can occur due to a host of predisposing cardiac disorders or as secondary effects of systemic illness. When the heart is unable to provide an adequate cardiac output to maintain adequate tissue perfusion, cardiogenic shock ensues. Without prompt diagnosis and appropriate management, these patients have significant morbidity and mortality, with in-hospital mortality approaching 60% for all age groups. Accurate and rapid identification of cardiogenic shock as a medical emergency, with expeditious implementation of appropriate therapy, can lead to improved clinical outcomes. In this review, we discuss optimal strategies for diagnosis and monitoring of cardiogenic shock. We discuss the diverse therapeutic strategies employed for cardiogenic shock, including pharmacological (e.g., vasoactive agents, fibrinolytic agents), mechanical (e.g., intraaortic balloon pumps, left ventricular assist devices, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]), and surgical approaches such as coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), valvular repair or replacement (e.g., for acute mitral regurgitation, ventricular septal rupture, or free wall rupture).