Performance of Integrated Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Intravascular Ultrasound (NIRS-IVUS) System against Quantitative Flow Ratio (QFR).

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a new opportunity to analyze functional stenosis during invasive coronary angiography. Together with a well-known intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and a new player in the field, near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), it is gaining a lot of interest. The aim of the study was to compare QFR results with integrated IVUS-NIRS results acquired simultaneously in the same coronary lesion. We retrospectively enrolled 66 patients in whom 66 coronary lesions were assessed by NIRS-IVUS and QFR. Lesions were divided into two groups based on QFR results as QFR-positive group (QFR ≤ 0.8) or QFR-negative group (QFR > 0.8). Based on ROC curve analysis, the best cut-off values of minimal lumen area (MLA), minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and percent diameter stenosis for predicting QFR ≤ 80 were 2.4 (AUC 0.733, 95%CI 0.61, 0.834), 1.6 (AUC 0.768, 95%CI 0.634, 0.872) and 59.5 (AUC 0.918, 95%CI 0.824, 0.971), respectively. In QFR-positive lesions, the maxLCBI4mm was significantly higher than in QFR-negative lesions (450.12 ± 251.0 vs. 329.47 ± 191.14, p = 0.046). The major finding of the present study is that values of IVUS-MLA, IVUS-MLD and percent diameter stenosis show a good efficiency in predicting QFR ≤ 0.80. Moreover, QFR-positive lesions are characterized by higher maxLCBI4mm as compared to the QFR-negative group.

Periprocedural checklist in the catheterisation laboratory is associated with decreased rate of treatment complications.

BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiology and electrophysiology are disciplines with a growing number of complex procedures, which are exposed to the occurrence of many complications. AIM: To assess efficacy and legitimacy of the periprocedural checklist in prevention of cardiovascular adverse events, in elective patients undergoing invasive diagnostic and treatment. METHODS: A total of 2064 patients directed to treatment in the catheterisation laboratory between May 2011 to August 2012 were analysed. Patients who were hospitalised without invasive diagnostics and treatment were not included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: a control group - 1011 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment before introduction of periprocedural checklist; and an intervention group - 1053 patients with invasive diagnostics and treatment after introduction of periprocedural checklist. We analysed the studied groups, assessing adverse events associated with hospitalisation and performed procedures. We also conducted subjective evaluation of checklists by medical staff on the basis of a questionnaire. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics between the studied groups were comparable except for a higher rate of stable coronary artery disease (50.7% vs. 39.6%, p £ 0.001) and electrophysiology procedures in the control group. Implementation of a checklist was favourable in cases of decreased adverse events (6.8% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.004) especially bleedings (2.3% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that lack of a periprocedural checklist during hospitalisation was an independent factor associated with a higher rate of adverse events (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 1.60-5.53, p = 0.001). Subjective evaluation of medical staff opinions showed that implementation of a checklist seems to be associated with improved communication skills, work organisation, prevention of the occurrence of medical errors, and reduced rate of complications associated with procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a periprocedural checklist was associated with significant reduction of adverse events among patients undergoing invasive procedures. It also showed a positive influence on team communication, and organisation and quality of treatment, according to the opinions of medical staff.

Double stent loss during multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.

The following description presents a case of a 75-year-old female patient with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in whom there occurred an infrequent complication of percutaneous coronary angioplasty: uncontrolled intracoronary stent displacement from a balloon catheter. During the attempt to retrieve the device using the "small-balloon" technique, further slippage of the stent from the balloon catheter to the right deep femoral artery was observed. Therefore, it was decided to provide a commercial intravascular microloop, whereby the stent was successfully retrieved outside the vascular system.