Overlapping versus single long stents in long chronic total occlusions: insights of the Iberian CTO Registry.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the availability of long drug-eluting stents modify the PCI strategy of long CTO. To describe the contemporary PCI strategy of long chronic total occlusions (CTO) using overlapping (OS) or single long stents (SS) and to analyze its results. METHODS: 2842 consecutive CTO PCIs were included. Those with an occlusion length ≥20 mm in which ≥1 drug eluting stent (DES) was implanted were analyzed. We compared procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of CTO treated with OS or SS. RESULTS: 1088 CTO PCIs were analyzed (79.9% males; 64.7±10.6 years). Mean J-score was 2.8±0.9. A SS was used in 38.5% of cases and OS in 61.5%. Total stent length was 64.1±29.9 mm; it was higher in the OS group (OS: 79.9±25.5 mm vs. SS: 38.3±14.7 mm; P<0.0001). Mean number of stents in the OS group was 2.3±1. Very long stents (≥40 mm) were used in 27.4% of cases, more frequently in the OS group (OS:32.4% vs. SS:19.3%; P<0.0001). After a mean follow-up of 19±15.9 months, the rate of adverse events (MACE) was 2% (cardiac death: 1.6%, myocardial infarction: 1.6%, target lesion revascularization: 1.9% and stent thrombosis: 0.18%) with no significant differences between both groups. Overlapping was not an independent predictor of MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In long CTO PCIs, OS is more frequently used than single stenting, especially in more complex procedures. Clinical outcomes at a mid-term follow-up are favorable. Using newer generation DES, overlapping was not an independent predictor of MACE; however, a trend toward a higher event rate was observed in the OS group.

Impact of diabetes in patients waiting for invasive cardiac procedures during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, elective invasive cardiac procedures (ICP) have been frequently cancelled or postponed. Consequences may be more evident in patients with diabetes. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to identify the peculiarities of patients with DM among those in whom ICP were cancelled or postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to identify subgroups in which the influence of DM has higher impact on the clinical outcome. METHODS: We included 2,158 patients in whom an elective ICP was cancelled or postponed during COVID-19 pandemic in 37 hospitals in Spain. Among them, 700 (32.4%) were diabetics. Patients with and without diabetes were compared. RESULTS: Patients with diabetes were older and had a higher prevalence of other cardiovascular risk factors, previous cardiovascular history and co-morbidities. Diabetics had a higher mortality (3.0% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (1.9% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.001). Differences were especially important in patients with valvular heart disease (mortality 6.9% vs 1.7% [p < 0.001] and cardiovascular mortality 4.9% vs 0.9% [p = 0.002] in patients with and without diabetes, respectively). In the multivariable analysis, diabetes remained as an independent risk factor both for overall and cardiovascular mortality. No significant interaction was found with other clinical variables. CONCLUSION: Among patients in whom an elective invasive cardiac procedure is cancelled or postponed during COVID-19 pandemic, mortality and cardiovascular mortality is higher in patients with diabetes, irrespectively on other clinical conditions. These procedures should not be cancelled in patients with diabetes.

Consequences of canceling elective invasive cardiac procedures during Covid-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic in Spain, elective procedures were canceled or postponed, mainly due to health care systems overwhelming. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the consequences of interrupting invasive procedures in patients with chronic cardiac diseases due to the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain. METHODS: The study population is comprised of 2,158 patients that were pending on elective cardiac invasive procedures in 37 hospitals in Spain on the 14th of March 2020, when a state of alarm and subsequent lockdown was declared in Spain due to the COVID-19 pandemic. These patients were followed-up until April 31th. RESULTS: Out of the 2,158 patients, 36 (1.7%) died. Mortality was significantly higher in patients pending on structural procedures (4.5% vs. 0.8%, respectively; p < .001), in those >80 year-old (5.1% vs. 0.7%, p < .001), and in presence of diabetes (2.7% vs. 0.9%, p = .001), hypertension (2.0% vs. 0.6%, p = .014), hypercholesterolemia (2.0% vs. 0.9%, p = .026) [Correction added on December 23, 2020, after first online publication: as per Dr. Moreno's request changes in p-values were made after original publication in Abstract.], chronic renal failure (6.0% vs. 1.2%, p < .001), NYHA > II (3.8% vs. 1.2%, p = .001), and CCS > II (4.2% vs. 1.4%, p = .013), whereas was it was significantly lower in smokers (0.5% vs. 1.9%, p = .013). Multivariable analysis identified age > 80, diabetes, renal failure and CCS > II as independent predictors for mortality. CONCLUSION: Mortality at 45 days during COVID-19 outbreak in patients with chronic cardiovascular diseases included in a waiting list due to cancellation of invasive elective procedures was 1.7%. Some clinical characteristics may be of help in patient selection for being promptly treated when similar situations happen in the future.

Quality of life of patients undergoing conventional vs leadless pacemaker implantation: A multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Leadless pacemakers (L-PM) are an emerging effective and safe technology that offer an alternative to conventional pacemakers (C-PM) for right ventricular stimulation. However, there is little information about their potential benefits for quality of life (QoL) in patients with L-PM. We compared QoL between patients with L-PM and C-PM. METHODS: The study population comprised patients undergoing single chamber pacemaker implantation from December 2016 to March 2018. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to evaluate QoL at baseline and at 6 months of followup. We also used a questionnaire consisted of 10 specific questions related to the implant procedure. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients (64 C-PM; 42 L-PM) were included. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups (C-PM vs L-PM), except for age (81.5 vs 77.3 years; P = .012) and diabetes (38% vs 17%; P = .021). Baseline SF-36 scores did not differ between the groups. At 6 months followup, patients in the L-PM group scored significantly higher on physical function (63 vs 42; P < .001), physical role (64 vs 36; P = .004), and mental health (75 vs 65; P = .017), even after adjusting for covariates. Pacemaker-related discomfort and physical restrictions were significantly lower for the L-PM group. CONCLUSION: L-PM is associated with better QoL than C-PM in both physical and mental health. Patients undergoing L-PM implantation reported less procedure-related discomfort, physical restriction, and preoccupation.

Frailty, disability and comorbidity: different domains lead to different effects after surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty syndrome predicts adverse outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement. However, disability or comorbidity is frequently associated with preoperative frailty evaluation. The effects of these domains on early and late outcomes were analysed. METHODS: A prospective study including patients aged ≥75 years with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who received aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass grafting was conducted. We used the Cardiovascular Health Study Frailty Phenotype to assess frailty, the Lawton-Brody index to define disability and the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) to evaluate comorbidity. RESULTS: Frailty was identified in 57 (31%), dependence in 18 (9.9%) and advanced comorbidity (CCI ≥ 4) in 67 (36.6%) of the 183 enrolled patients. Operative mortality (1.6%), transfusion rate and duration of stay increased in patients with CCI ≥4 (P < 0.005). There was a non-significant trend for these adverse outcomes among the frail patients. Follow-up was achieved in all patients (median/interquartile range 869/699-1099 days). Kaplan-Meier univariable analysis showed a reduced survival rate for frail and dependent patients and for those with multiple comorbidities (P < 0.05). According to multivariable analysis, frailty and comorbidity were independent risk factors for 1-year mortality, while disability and comorbidity, but not frailty, were risk factors for 3-year mortality (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged ≥75 years is a safe procedure with low mortality rates. Operative outcomes are mainly affected by comorbidities. The main influence of survival occurs throughout the first year, and an improved functional status prevents any progression towards disabilities, which could potentially benefit long-term outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02745314.

[Myocardial perfusion SPECT in right bundle branch block and left anterior hemiblock]. / SPECT de perfusión miocárdica en el bloqueo de rama derecha y en el hemibloqueo anterior.

The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of myocardial perfusion SPECT (single photon emission computed tomography) with technetium labeling in patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) and with left anterior hemiblock (LAH). One hundred seven patients (53 RBBB, 54 LAH) for whom coronary angiography results were available were selected. The gold standard for diagnosis was based on two coronary angiography criteria: a) stenosis equal to or greater than 50% in at least one coronary artery, and b) completely normal coronary angiography. The sensitivity of SPECT was approximately 90% in both RBBB and LAH. Specificity was 58% and 50%, respectively, for the first criterion, but was 85.7% and 87.5%, respectively, for the second criterion.