Comparing the diagnostic value of Echocardiography In Stroke (CEIS) - results of a prospective observatory cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Echocardiography is one of the main diagnostic tools for the diagnostic workup of stroke and is already well integrated into the clinical workup. However, the value of transthoracic vs. transesophageal echocardiography (TTE/TEE) in stroke patients is still a matter of debate. Aim of this study was to characterize relevant findings of TTE and TEE in the management of stroke patients and to correlate them with subsequent clinical decisions and therapies. METHODS: We evaluated n = 107 patients admitted with an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack to our stroke unit of our university medical center. They underwent TTE and TEE examination by different blinded investigators. RESULTS: Major cardiac risk factors were found in 8 of 98 (8.2%) patients and minor cardiac risk factors for stroke were found in 108 cases. We found a change in therapeutic regime after TTE or TEE in 22 (22.5%) cases, in 5 (5%) cases TEE leads to the change of therapeutic regime, in 4 (4%) TTE and in 13 cases (13.3%) TTE and TEE lead to the same change in therapeutic regime. The major therapy change was the indication to close a patent foramen ovale (PFO) in 9 (9.2%) patients with TTE and in 10 (10.2%) patients with TEE (p = 1.000). CONCLUSION: Major finding with clinical impact on therapy change is the detection of PFO. But for the detection of PFO, TTE is non inferior to TEE, implicating that TTE serves as a good screening tool for detection of PFO, especially in young age patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered and approved prior to inclusion by our local ethics committee (1/3/17).

Use of the Impella Device for Acute Coronary Syndrome Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock - Experience From a Single Heart Center With Analysis of Long-term Mortality.

AIMS: Impella is a microaxial rotary pump that is placed across the aortic valve to expel aspirated blood from the left ventricle into the ascending aorta; it can be used in cardiogenic shock. While previous studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of the Impella device, more clinically relevant data are necessary, especially with regard to outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We screened our database of Impella patients in our heart center and found 68 consecutive patients who underwent Impella implantation due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) complicated by cardiogenic shock. Data were evaluated with regard to baseline and procedural characteristics and also included an assessment of the short-term and long-term outcomes. The majority of patients (74%) suffered from an ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and 59% of patients received the Impella device during the initial coronary angiography. In the remaining cases, Impella implantation was performed at a later time, most commonly after IABP implantation. Patient characteristics were not significantly different between both groups. The predominantly implanted device was an Impella 2.5. Mortality in the severely ill patient population remained high, but univariate/multivariate analyses identified significant risk factors. Interestingly, delayed initiation of Impella support was an independent predictor of higher long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 2.157; P=.04) within the Impella patient cohort. CONCLUSION: This large series of patients with ACS complicated by cardiogenic shock who underwent Impella implantation provides information on the relevant risk factors for mortality. Early (compared with delayed) initiation of Impella support was a predictor of improved survival in this population of patients.