Uncrossable and undilatable lesions-A practical approach to optimizing outcomes in PCI.

Uncrossable lesions are those that cannot be crossed with a balloon after successful guidewire crossing. These lesions are challenging and are commonly encountered in tortuous and calcified arteries as well as chronic total occlusions. They are the second most common barrier to successful PCI in CTO intervention after inability to cross the CTO segment with a guidewire. Procedures involving balloon uncrossable lesions during routine and CTO PCI utilise longer procedural times, radiation dose and contrast volumes with a lower likelihood of procedural success. In this article, we describe a pragmatic approach of managing balloon uncrossable lesions utilising the most contemporary equipment available in an algorithmic fashion beginning with simple, cost effective techniques right up to complex strategies for advanced operators. In addition, some of these lesions, even when crossed by any technique, they may remain difficult to dilate and prepare for stent insertion. We describe an approach of how to manage these undilatable lesions.

Transradial Secondary Access to Guide Valve Implantation and Manage Peripheral Vascular Complications During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

BACKGROUND: Vascular complications from transfemoral (TF) secondary access during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are common. We compare our experience of transradial (TR) versus transfemoral secondary access during TAVI and describe techniques for performing iliofemoral arterial intervention from the transradial approach. METHODS: All TAVI procedures with a single secondary access were included. Demographics, procedural details and 30-day outcomes were recorded. VARC-2 criteria were used for procedural complications. Procedures with TF primary access were stratified by the site of secondary arterial access. RESULTS: Single secondary access was used in 199 cases, of which 20 were performed via non-TF access. Of the 179 TF primary access cases, 115 (64%) used TR secondary access and 64 (36%) used TF secondary access. In the TR cohort percutaneous vascular intervention was performed from the transradial approach in 19 cases (17%). Emergent TF secondary access was not required in any case. There were no differences in procedural time, radiation dose, contrast use, bleeding complications, stroke or mortality between the groups. There was one secondary access complication in the TF cohort and none in the TR cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Transradial (TR) secondary access during TAVI is safe and feasible and may reduce the secondary access site vascular complication rate. With appropriate equipment, most peripheral vascular complications can be managed entirely via TR access avoiding unplanned femoral arterial access. TR secondary access should be considered the default approach for non-TF TAVI cases and can be considered for all TF cases as long as dedicated equipment is available.

Septal Hematoma: A Rare But Potentially Serious Complication of Retrograde CTO-PCI.

The uptake of CTO-PCI and the use of the hybrid approach have increased widely; this has resulted in a new set of complications, some of which are unusual, particularly with the retrograde approach. We present a case of a rare complication of septal collateral perforation resulting in the formation of septal hematoma that fortunately on this occasion did not result in any significant clinical deterioration, and was managed conservatively with a successful outcome. However, on other occasions, the outcome can be more serious.

Outcomes after culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison of registry and clinical trial outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The PRAMI and CvLPRIT trials support preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel coronary disease found during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We assess our real-world experience of the management of multivessel disease identified during primary PCI (PPCI) in a large UK regional centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All STEMI patients who underwent culprit-only PPCI during the study period (August 2011 to August 2013) were retrospectively assessed for eligibility to each trial. The two resulting groups were designated as the 'observational' cohorts. Primary outcomes were then determined and compared with the culprit-only revascularisation cohorts from the respective published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: A total of 1143 consecutive cases were presented during the study period. Of these, 343 would have been suitable for inclusion to PRAMI and were included in the 'observational PRAMI' cohort; 196 patients were included in the 'observational CvLPRIT' cohort.The 'observational PRAMI' cohort experienced fewer primary outcome events (13.1 vs. 22.9%), cardiac deaths (0.6 vs. 4.3%) and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (3.5 vs. 8.7%) than the culprit-only PCI PRAMI cohort (n=231); there were significantly more diabetics (P=0.022) and anterior STEMI initial presentations in the culprit-only PCI PRAMI cohort. Primary outcomes were comparable to those of the preventive PCI PRAMI cohort.The 'observational CvLPRIT' cohort showed no significant difference in primary outcomes over 12 months (16.8 vs. 21.2%), but significantly lower all-cause mortality (2 vs. 6.9%) than the culprit-only PCI CvPLRIT cohort (n=146). The 30-day event rates were similar to the preventive PCI arm; the 12-month events were better than the nonpreventive, but not as good as the preventive RCT cohorts. CONCLUSION: Outcomes from culprit-only primary PCI for multivessel disease in patients selected by the RCT criteria from an all-comers population representing real-life experience are better than those published in the two main RCTs. The RCTs may have selected a high-risk population for study exaggerating the benefits of preventive PCI.