In-hospital gastrointestinal bleeding following percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine in-hospital gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, its predictors and clinical outcomes, including long-term outcomes, in a national cohort of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in England and Wales. BACKGROUND: GI bleeding remains associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and socioeconomic burden. METHODS: We examined the temporal changes in in-hospital GI bleeding in a national cohort of patients undergoing PCI between 2007 and 2014 in England and Wales, its predictors and prognostic consequences. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors between GI bleeding and 30-day mortality. Survival analysis was performed comparing patients with, and without, GI bleeding. RESULTS: There were 480 in-hospital GI bleeds in 549,298 patients (0.09%). Overall, rates of GI bleeding remained stable over time but a significant decline was observed for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The strongest predictors of bleeding events were STEMI-odds ratio (OR) 7.28 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 4.82-11.00), glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use OR 3.42 (95% CI 2.76-4.24) and use of circulatory support OR 2.65 (95% CI 1.90-3.71). Antiplatelets/coagulants (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and warfarin) were not independently associated with GI bleeding. GI bleeding was independently associated with a significant increase in all-cause 30-day mortality (OR 2.08 [1.52-2.83]). Patients with in-hospital GI bleed who survived to 30-days had increased all-cause mortality risk at 1 year compared to non-bleeders (HR 1.49 [1.07-2.09]). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital GI bleeding following PCI is rare but is a clinically important event associated with increased 30-day and long-term mortality.

Incidence and Clinical Course of Limb Dysfunction Post Cardiac Catheterization　- A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed the available literature on limb dysfunction after transradial access (TRA) or transfemoral access (TFA) cardiac catheterization. Methods and Results: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies evaluating any transradial or transfemoral procedures and limb function outcomes. Data were extracted and results were narratively synthesized with similar treatment arms. The TRA group included 15 studies with 3,616 participants and of these 3 reported nerve damage with a combined incidence of 0.16% and 4 reported sensory loss, tingling and numbness with a pooled incidence of 1.61%. Pain after TRA was the most common form of limb dysfunction (7.77%) reported in 3 studies. The incidence of hand dysfunction defined as disability, grip strength change, power loss or neuropathy was low at 0.49%. Although radial artery occlusion (RAO) was not a primary endpoint for this review, it was observed in 3.57% of the participants in a total of 8 studies included. The TFA group included 4 studies with 15,903,894 participants; the rates of peripheral neuropathy were 0.004%, sensory neuropathy caused by local groin injury and retroperitoneal hematomas were 0.04% and 0.17%, respectively, and motor deficit caused by femoral and obturator nerve damage was 0.13%. CONCLUSIONS: Limb dysfunction post cardiac catheterization is rare, but patients may have nonspecific sensory and motor complaints that resolve over a period of time.

Accelerated patent hemostasis using a procoagulant disk; a protocol designed to minimize the risk of radial artery occlusion following cardiac catheterization.

PURPOSE: Radial artery occlusion flowing cardiac catheterisation has been linked to flow reduction and prolonged compression. We investigate whether these factors can be optimised following transradial cardiac catheterisation by using an accelerated band removal protocol facilitated by a haemostasis promoting pad, in combination with a patent haemostasis technique. METHODS: In this single centre prospective study, 389 consecutive patients undergoing TRA for coronary angiography or angioplasty were randomised to two haemostasis protocols: use of a Helix™ compression device alone (HC) or in combination with a haemostatic pad (StatSeal® disc) and an accelerated haemostasis protocol (AC). A patent haemostasis technique was employed in both study arms. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to haemostasis and the secondary safety outcome was access site related complications: re-bleeding, haematoma and radial artery patency assessed within 24 h using reverse Barbeau's Test (BT). RESULTS: Between May and Nov 2017, 191 patients were randomised to receive HC and 198 patients to AC. Compression time was significantly higher with HC as compared to AC (165.8 ±â€¯63.1 versus 79.7 ±â€¯41.2 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in re-bleeding and RAO between groups (3.7% versus 5.6%, p = 0.37 and 6.3% versus 4.1%, p = 0.33) respectively. Incidence of haematoma was higher in AC group (4.7% versus 12.1%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: A reduction in radial artery compression time can be achieved by using Statseal in association with an accelerated haemostasis protocol without increasing the risk of access site bleeding and RAO. The combination of reduced compression time combined with maintained radial flow via patent haemostasis has the potential to reduce the risk of radial occlusion after transradial catheterisation.