Management of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications.

OPINION STATEMENT: With the recent increase in complex coronary interventions including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusions and complex higher risk (and indicated) patients, the spectrum of potential periprocedural complications and their prompt management has become even more relevant. Vascular access-related problems remain the most prevalent of all PCI complications and with randomized controlled trial data from over 20,000 patients supporting the superiority of radial over femoral access in reducing bleeding and vascular complications, a default radial strategy should be promoted. The European Society of Cardiology guidelines have acknowledged this by giving a class 1 (level of evidence: A) recommendation for a radial approach for PCI. The US society guidelines, however, have thus far lagged behind. Each individual patient undergoing a PCI should be risk-stratified objectively using available risk prediction models based on patient comorbidities and anatomical and procedural complexities. Customized informed consent should therefore be provided to all patients and should include the potential risks from radiation injury. Here, we review the current data related to common periprocedural complications related to PCI.

Cardiovascular Critical Care: A Perceived Deficiency Among U.S. Trainees.

OBJECTIVE: Acute and chronic cardiovascular comorbidities are common among critically ill individuals. It is unclear if current critical care fellowship trainees feel adequately prepared to manage these conditions. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional survey. PATIENTS OR SUBJECTS: Trainees enrolled in U.S. critical care training programs. SETTING: Accredited pulmonary/critical care, surgery/critical care, anesthesiology/critical care, and stand-alone critical care training programs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A 19-item survey assessing trainee confidence in the management of cardiac critical illness and the performance of cardiac-specific critical care interventions was constructed using Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education recommendations as a reference. After validation, the survey was electronically sent to all training programs for dissemination to their trainees. Confidence scores were measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5. A total of 134 completed surveys were analyzed. Overall, respondents reported lower confidence in managing cardiovascular compared with noncardiovascular diseases in the ICU (4.0 vs 4.6 out of 5). Likewise, they reported lower perceived competence in performing cardiovascular procedures specific to the ICU (2.9 vs 4.5 out of 5). The majority (88%) of those surveyed felt that they would benefit from increased didactic and clinical experience in the management of cardiovascular critical illness. CONCLUSIONS: Current critical care fellows may be unprepared to deal with the increasing prevalence of cardiovascular illness in the ICU. This potential educational gap warrants timely attention to ensure that future graduates have the requisite skills necessary to manage these critically ill patients and presents a unique opportunity to develop multidisciplinary partnerships for enhancing training.