Routine Protamine Administration for Bleeding in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: The ACE-PROTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Vascular complications after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remain an important cause of procedure-related morbidity. Routine reversal of anticoagulation with protamine at the conclusion of transfemoral TAVI could reduce complications, but data remain scarce. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of routine protamine administration after transfemoral TAVI. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACE-PROTAVI trial was an investigator-initiated, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial performed at 3 Australian hospitals between December 2021 and June 2023 with a 1-year follow-up period. All patients accepted for transfemoral TAVI by a multidisciplinary heart team were eligible for enrollment. Interventions: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 between routine protamine administration and placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were the rate of hemostasis success and time to hemostasis (TTH), presented as categorical variables and compared with a χ2 test or as continuous variables as mean (SD) or median (IQR), depending on distribution. The major secondary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, major and minor bleeding complications, and major and minor vascular complications after 30 days, reported in odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and P values. Results: The study population consisted of 410 patients: 199 patients in the protamine group and 211 in the placebo group. The median (IQR) patient age in the protamine group was 82 (77-85) years, and 68 of 199 patients receiving protamine (34.2%) were female. The median (IQR) patient age in the placebo group was 80 (75-85) years, and 89 of 211 patients receiving the placebo (42.2%) were female. Patients receiving up-front protamine administration had a higher rate of hemostasis success (188 of 192 patients [97.9%]) than patients in the placebo group (186 of 203 patients [91.6%]; absolute risk difference, 6.3%; 95% CI, 2.0%-10.6%; P = .006); in addition, patients receiving up-front protamine had a shorter median (IQR) TTH (181 [120-420] seconds vs 279 [122-600] seconds; P = .002). Routine protamine administration resulted in a reduced risk of the composite outcome in the protamine group (10 of 192 [5.2%]) vs the placebo group (26 of 203 [12.8%]; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = .01). This difference was predominantly driven by the difference in the prevalence of minor vascular complications. There were no adverse events associated with protamine use. Conclusions and Relevance: In the ACE-PROTAVI randomized clinical trial, routine administration of protamine increased the rate of hemostasis success and decreased TTH. The beneficial effect of protamine was reflected in a reduction in minor vascular complications, procedural time, and postprocedural hospital stay duration in patients receiving routine protamine compared with patients receiving placebo. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12621001261808.

The impact of stress testing to guide PCI in patients with chronic coronary disease.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and international appropriate use criteria increasingly endorse non-invasive stress testing to evaluate patients with suspected chronic coronary disease (CCD). We sought to review the real-world utilisation of non-invasive stress testing and investigate whether their use prior to PCI associates with outcomes in patients with CCD. METHODS: Consecutive patients from a multicentre registry who underwent PCI for CCD between 2006 and 2018 were included. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were stratified according to whether stress testing was performed prior to PCI (stress vs no-stress groups). The primary outcome was 3-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among the 8251 patients included, 4970 (60.2 %) underwent pre-PCI stress testing and this proportion increased over time (p-for-trend<0.001). The stress group had a lower prevalence of prior revascularization, myocardial infarction, or heart failure, and a lower incidence of triple vessel disease, in stent re-stenosis, and ACC/AHA class B2/C lesions (all p < 0.001). When comparing post-procedural outcomes, the stress group had lower rates of arrhythmia (1.5 % vs 2.6 %, p = 0.001), new heart failure (0.2 % vs 0.8 %, p = 0.001), renal impairment, and a shorter length of stay (1.6 vs 2.1 days, p < 0.001). Mortality at 3-years was lower in those undergoing PCI following stress testing (5.8 % vs 8.8 %, p < 0.001). After adjusting for key clinical variables, stress guided revascularization was associated with a significantly lower risk of 3-year mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio 0.77, 95 % CI 0.64-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CCD, PCI guided by non-invasive stress testing is increasingly utilized and associated with improved survival. Further studies are necessary to investigate whether this results from differences in patient characteristics, optimized patient selection, or refined choice of target vessel.

Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Older People: Comprehensive Review and Multidisciplinary Practice-Based Recommendations.

Managing health care for older adults aged 75 years and older can pose unique challenges stemming from age-related physiological differences and comorbidities, along with elevated risk of delirium, frailty, disability, and polypharmacy. This review is aimed at providing a comprehensive analysis of the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in older patients, a demographic substantially underrepresented in major clinical trials. Because older patients often exhibit atypical ACS symptoms, a nuanced diagnostic and risk stratification approach is necessary. We aim to address diagnostic challenges for older populations and highlight the diminished sensitivity of traditional symptoms with age, and the importance of biomarkers and imaging techniques tailored for older patients. Additionally, we review the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents for ACS management in older people, emphasizing the need for a personalized and shared decision-making approach to treatment. This review also explores revascularization strategies, considering the implications of invasive procedures in older people, and weighing the potential benefits against the heightened procedural risks, particularly with surgical revascularization techniques. We explore the perioperative management of older patients experiencing myocardial infarction in the setting of noncardiac surgeries, including preoperative risk stratification and postoperative care considerations. Furthermore, we highlight the critical role of a multidisciplinary approach involving cardiologists, geriatricians, general and internal medicine physicians, primary care physicians, and allied health, to ensure a holistic care pathway in this patient cohort.

Graft Patency and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Radial Artery Grafts Previously Instrumented for Cardiac Catheterization.

BACKGROUND: While transradial access is favored for cardiac catheterization, the radial artery (RA) is increasingly preferred for coronary artery bypass grafting. Whether the RA is suitable for use as a graft following instrumentation for transradial access remains uncertain. METHODS: Consecutive patients from 2015 to 2019 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using both the left and right RAs as grafts were included. Instrumented RAs underwent careful preoperative assessment for suitability. The clinical analysis was stratified by whether patients received an instrumented RA graft (instrumented versus noninstrumented groups). Eligible patients with both instrumented and noninstrumented RAs underwent computed tomography coronary angiography to evaluate graft patency. The primary outcome was a within-patient paired analysis of graft patency comparing instrumented to noninstrumented RA grafts. RESULTS: Of the 1123 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, 294 had both the left and right RAs used as grafts and were included. There were 126 and 168 patients in the instrumented and noninstrumented groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were comparable. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years following coronary artery bypass grafting was 2.4% in the instrumented group and 5.4% in the noninstrumented group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.12-1.61]; P=0.19). There were 50 patients included in the graft patency analysis. At a median follow-up of 4.3 (interquartile range, 3.7-4.5) years, 40/50 (80%) instrumented and 41/50 (82%) noninstrumented grafts were patent (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.29-2.52]; P>0.99). No significant differences were observed in the luminal diameter or cross-sectional area of the instrumented and noninstrumented RA grafts. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence found in this study that RA graft patency was affected by prior transradial access, and the use of an instrumented RA was not associated with worse outcomes in the exploratory clinical analysis. Although conduits must be carefully selected, prior transradial access should not be considered an absolute contraindication to the use of the RA as a bypass graft. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12621000257864.

Ultrasound Guidance for Transradial Access in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although ultrasound (US) guidance for vascular access has been widely adopted, its use for transradial access (TRA) in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory is rare. There is a perception that US guidance does not offer a clinically relevant benefit over traditional palpation-guided TRA, amplified by inconsistent findings of individual studies. METHOD: A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library identified studies comparing US to palpation-guided TRA for cardiac catheterisation. Studies evaluating radial artery (RA) cannulation for any other reason were excluded. Event rates and risk ratios (RRs) were pooled for meta-analysis. Access failure was the primary outcome. A random-effects model was used for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 977 records screened, four studies with a total of 1,718 patients (861 US-guided and 864 palpation-guided procedures) were included in the meta-analysis. Most procedures were elective. The pooled analysis showed US guidance significantly lowered the risk of access failure (RR 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.97; p=0.04). Heterogeneity was moderate (I2=51.2%; p=0.105). There was a strong trend to improved first-pass success with US (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.00-1.66; p=0.05; I2=83.8%), although no differences were found in rates of difficult access (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-1.18; p=0.09; I2=88.3%). Salvage US guidance was successful in 30/41 (73.2%) patients following failed palpation-guided TRA. No differences were found in already low complication rates including RA spasm (RR 1.18; 95% CI 0.70-1.99; p=0.53; I2=0.0%) and bleeding (RR 1.32; 95% CI 0.46-3.80; p=0.60; I2=0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: US guidance was found to improve TRA success in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether routine, selective, or salvage use of US confers the most RA protection, patient satisfaction, and overall clinical benefit. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022332238).