Microaxial Flow Pump or Standard Care in Infarct-Related Cardiogenic Shock.

BACKGROUND: The effects of temporary mechanical circulatory support with a microaxial flow pump on mortality among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock remains unclear. METHODS: In an international, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock to receive a microaxial flow pump (Impella CP) plus standard care or standard care alone. The primary end point was death from any cause at 180 days. A composite safety end point was severe bleeding, limb ischemia, hemolysis, device failure, or worsening aortic regurgitation. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients underwent randomization, of whom 355 were included in the final analysis (179 in the microaxial-flow-pump group and 176 in the standard-care group). The median age of the patients was 67 years, and 79.2% were men. Death from any cause occurred in 82 of 179 patients (45.8%) in the microaxial-flow-pump group and in 103 of 176 patients (58.5%) in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.99; P = 0.04). A composite safety end-point event occurred in 43 patients (24.0%) in the microaxial-flow-pump group and in 11 (6.2%) in the standard-care group (relative risk, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.36 to 9.55). Renal-replacement therapy was administered to 75 patients (41.9%) in the microaxial-flow-pump group and to 47 patients (26.7%) in the standard-care group (relative risk, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.09). CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of a microaxial flow pump with standard care in the treatment of patients with STEMI-related cardiogenic shock led to a lower risk of death from any cause at 180 days than standard care alone. The incidence of a composite of adverse events was higher with the use of the microaxial flow pump. (Funded by the Danish Heart Foundation and Abiomed; DanGer Shock ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01633502.).

Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are eligible for both transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR), data are lacking on the appropriate treatment strategy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In this randomized noninferiority trial conducted at 38 sites in Germany, we assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low or intermediate surgical risk to undergo either TAVI or SAVR. Percutaneous- and surgical-valve prostheses were selected according to operator discretion. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or fatal or nonfatal stroke at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 1414 patients underwent randomization (701 to the TAVI group and 713 to the SAVR group). The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 74±4 years; 57% were men, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.8% (low surgical risk). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome at 1 year was 5.4% in the TAVI group and 10.0% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio for death or stroke, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.79; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of death from any cause was 2.6% in the TAVI group and 6.2% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.73); the incidence of stroke was 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.06). Procedural complications occurred in 1.5% and 1.0% of patients in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to death from any cause or stroke at 1 year. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the German Heart Foundation; DEDICATE-DZHK6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112980.).

Procedural and one-year outcomes of robotic-assisted versus manual percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (rPCI) has proven to be feasible and safe. Comparative analyses of rPCI versus manual PCI (mPCI) are scarce. AIMS: We aimed to investigate procedural aspects and outcomes of rPCI using the second-generation CorPath GRX Vascular Robotic System compared with mPCI in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: From January to April 2021, 70 patients underwent rPCI at the University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg-Eppendorf and were recruited into the INTERCATH study. By propensity score matching, a control cohort of 210 patients who underwent mPCI from 2015-2021 was identified. Co-primary endpoints were one-year all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a composite of cardiovascular death, unplanned target lesion revascularisation, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The median age of the patients (n=280) was 70.7 (25th percentile-75th percentile: 62.0-78.0) years, and 24.6% were female. The Gensini score (28.5 [16.2-48.1] vs 28.0 [15.5-47.0]; p=0.78) was comparable between rPCI versus mPCI. During the PCI procedure, total contrast fluid volume did not differ, whilst longer fluoroscopy times (20.4 min [13.8-27.2] vs 14.4 min [10.4-24.3]; p=0.001) were documented in the rPCI versus mPCI cohort. After 12 months of follow-up, neither all-cause mortality (p=0.22) nor MACE (p=0.25) differed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: rPCI was associated with longer fluoroscopy times compared with mPCI, though without increased use of contrast medium. One-year follow-up revealed no differences in all-cause mortality or MACE, supporting the safety of a robotic-assisted approach.

Impact of Quantitative ST-T Analysis in Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction Presenting With Right Bundle Branch Block.

BACKGROUND: While left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a well-known risk feature in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and a rapid invasive management is recommended, data supporting this strategy for patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) is less robust. METHODS: In total, 2139 patients with suspected ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were triaged to acute coronary angiography based on a prehospital 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG). Sensitivity and specificity for STEMI-ECG criteria were compared in RBBB and non-BBB patients. Adjusted hazard ratios for 1-year overall mortality were computed. RESULTS: STEMI was adjudicated in 1832/2139 (85.6%) of all patients and in 102/117 (87.2%) of RBBB patients. ST-segment deviation followed typical ST-T patterns in most RBBB patients. Of 17 RBBB patients without significant ST changes, STEMI was adjudicated in 14 (82%). Diagnostic accuracy of STEMI criteria was comparable in RBBB and non-RBBB patients for inferior (sensitivity: 51.1% vs 59.1%, P = .14; specificity: 66.7% vs 52.1%, P = .33) and anterior STEMI (sensitivity: 35.2% vs 36.6%, P = .80; specificity: 58.3% vs 49.5%, P = .55). Diagnostic performance was lower for lateral STEMI in RBBB patients (sensitivity: 14.8% vs 4.4%, P = .001; specificity: 75.0% vs 98.4%, P < .001). Patients with RBBB had higher 1-year mortality compared with non-BBB patients (hazard ratio 2.3%; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-4.21. CONCLUSION: ECG criteria used for detection of STEMI showed comparable diagnostic accuracy in RBBB and non-BBB patients. However, STEMI was frequently present in RBBB patients not fulfilling diagnostic ECG criteria. RBBB patients showed poorer outcome after 1 year. Consequently, the presence of RBBB in suspected STEMI cases signifies a high-risk feature, aligning with established guidelines.

Pre-hospital admission of heparin in patients with suspected non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supporting pre-hospital heparin administration in patients with suspected non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is lacking. We aim to evaluate if pre-hospital heparin administration by emergency medical service improves clinical outcome in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. METHODS: Patients with suspected myocardial infarction (MI) presenting to the emergency department were prospectively enrolled from 2013 to 2021, excluding those with ST segment elevation MI. Patients with and without prehospital heparin administration were compared using propensity score matching. To assess the association between pre-hospital heparin loading, 30-day and 1-year mortality, Kaplan-Meier estimations and Cox regression models were used. RESULTS: Among 1,234 patients, median age was 69 years, 755 (61.2%) were male, 867 (70.5%) with known hypertension, 177 (14.4%) had diabetes, 280 (23.1%) were current smokers, and 444 (36.0%) had a history of CAD. Compared to patients without pre-hospital heparin administration, heparin pre-treated patients were more often active smokers (26.5% vs. 20.8%). After propensity matching, 475 patients with vs. without pre-hospital heparin administration were compared, with no significant difference in 30-day mortality (no-heparin 1.3% vs. heparin 0.4%) and 1-year mortality (no-heparin 7.2% vs. heparin 5.5%, adjusted HR 0.98, CI 0.95-1.01, p = 0.22). Bleeding events occurred at a low frequency (< 2%) and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, pre-hospital heparin administration was not associated with improved clinical outcome in patients with suspected NSTE-ACS. These findings question pre-hospital heparin therapy in this patient population and might potentially warrant a more restricted utilization pending in-hospital risk assessment.