A Randomized Controlled Trial of Nonfasting vs Fasting Before Interventional Coronary Procedures: The TONIC Trial.

BACKGROUND: Fasting before coronary procedures is currently recommended to reduce complications despite the lack of scientific evidence. OBJECTIVES: The TONIC (Comparison Between Fasting and No Fasting Before Interventional Coronary Intervention on the Occurrence of Adverse Events) noninferiority trial investigated the safety and comfort of a nonfasting strategy (ad libitum food and drinks) vs traditional fasting (>6 hours for solid food and liquids) before coronary procedures. METHODS: In this monocentric, prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial, 739 patients undergoing coronary procedures were included and randomized to a fasting or a nonfasting strategy. Emergency procedures were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of vasovagal reaction, hypoglycemia (defined by blood sugar ≤0.7 g/L), and isolated nausea and/or vomiting. Noninferiority margin was 4%. Secondary endpoints were contrast-induced nephropathy and patients' satisfaction. RESULTS: Among the 739 procedures (697 elective and 42 semiurgent), 517 angiographies, and 222 angioplasties (including complex and high-risk procedures) were performed. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 of 365 nonfasting patients (8.2%) vs 37 of 374 fasting patients (9.9%), demonstrating noninferiority (absolute between-group difference, -1.7%; 1-sided 95% CI upper limit: 1.8%). No food-related adverse event occurred, and contrast-related acute kidney injuries were similar between groups. Overall, procedure satisfaction and perceived pain were similar in both groups, but nonfasting patients reported less hunger and thirst (P < 0.01). In case of redo coronary procedures, most patients (79%) would choose a nonfasting strategy. CONCLUSIONS: The TONIC randomized trial demonstrates the noninferiority of a nonfasting strategy to the usual fasting strategy for coronary procedures regarding safety, while improving patients' comfort.

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Management and association with prognosis during the COVID-19 pandemic in France.

BACKGROUND: Systems of care have been challenged to control progression of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether this has been associated with delayed reperfusion and worse outcomes in French patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. AIM: To compare the rate of STEMI admissions, treatment delays, and outcomes between the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in France and the equivalent period in 2019. METHODS: In this nationwide French survey, data from consecutive STEMI patients from 65 centres referred for urgent revascularization between 1 March and 31 May 2020, and between 1 March and 31 May 2019, were analysed. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death or non-fatal mechanical complications of acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS: A total of 6306 patients were included. During the pandemic peak, a 13.9±6.6% (P=0.003) decrease in STEMI admissions per week was observed. Delays between symptom onset and percutaneous coronary intervention were longer in 2020 versus 2019 (270 [interquartile range 150-705] vs 245 [140-646]min; P=0.013), driven by the increase in time from symptom onset to first medical contact (121 [60-360] vs 150 [62-420]min; P=0.002). During 2020, a greater number of mechanical complications was observed (0.9% vs 1.7%; P=0.029) leading to a significant difference in the primary outcome (112 patients [5.6%] in 2019 vs 129 [7.6%] in 2020; P=0.018). No significant difference was observed in rates of orotracheal intubation, in-hospital cardiac arrest, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiogenic shock. CONCLUSIONS: During the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in France, there was a decrease in STEMI admissions, associated with longer ischaemic time, exclusively driven by an increase in patient-related delays and an increase in mechanical complications. These findings suggest the need to encourage the population to seek medical help in case of symptoms.

Perioperative Outcomes of Adjunctive Hypnotherapy Compared with Conscious Sedation Alone for Patients Undergoing Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using a transfemoral approach under local anesthesia with conscious sedation (LACS) is becoming an increasingly common TAVI strategy. However, patients who are awake during the TAVI procedure can experience stress, anxiety, and pain, even when LACS is used. Clinical hypnotherapy is an anxiolytic intervention that can be beneficial for patients undergoing invasive surgery. This study aimed to assess the perioperative outcomes of adjunctive hypnotherapy undergoing transfemoral TAVI with LACS.Consecutive patients (n = 143) with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who underwent transfemoral TAVI with LACS only (n = 107) or with LACS and hypnotherapy (n = 36) between January 2015 and April 2016 were retrospectively included in the study. The clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. The LACS with hypnotherapy group had a significantly shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU; LACS only versus LACS with hypnotherapy: 4.0 (4.0-5.5) days versus 3.0 (3.0-5.0) days, P < 0.01). Moreover, the use of anesthetics (propofol and remifentanil) and norepinephrine was significantly lower in the LACS with hypnotherapy group (e.g., for propofol, LACS only versus LACS with hypnotherapy: 96.4 ± 104.7 mg versus 15.0 ± 31.8 mg, P < 0.001). The multiple regression analysis showed that being male, hypnotherapy, and the composite complication score were independently associated with the length of stay in the ICU.The adjunctive hypnotherapy on LACS among transfemoral TAVI patients may facilitate perioperative management. However, a prospective randomized study is necessary to confirm the efficacy of hypnotherapy among TAVI patients.