Simplified Assessment of the Index of Microvascular Resistance.

BACKGROUND: To validate a simplified invasive method for the calculation of the index of microvascular resistance (IMR). METHODS: This is a prospective, single-center study of patients with chronic coronary syndromes presenting with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. IMR was obtained using both intravenous (IV) adenosine and intracoronary (IC) papaverine. Each IMR measurement was obtained in duplicate. The primary objective was the agreement between IMR acquired using adenosine and papaverine. Secondary objectives include reproducibility of IMR and time required for the IMR measurement. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen IMR measurements were performed in 29 patients. The mean age was 68.8 ± 7.24 years, and 27.6% was diabetics. IMR values were similar between papaverine and adenosine (17.7 ± 7.26 and 20.1 ± 8.6, p=0.25; Passing-Bablok coefficient A 0.58, 95% CI -2.42 to 3.53; coefficient B 0.90, 95% CI -0.74 to 1.07). The reproducibility of IMR was excellent with both adenosine and papaverine (ICC 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88 and ICC 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97). The time needed for microvascular assessment was significantly shortened by the use of IC papaverine (3.23 (2.84, 3.78) mins vs. 5.48 (4.94, 7.09) mins, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: IMR can be reliably measured using IC papaverine with similar results compared to intravenous infusion of adenosine with increased reproducibility and reduced procedural time. This approach simplifies the invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation in the catheterization laboratory.

Evidence-Based Practices in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiac catheterization procedures have rapidly evolved and expanded in scope and techniques over the past few decades. However, although some practices have emerged based on evidence, many traditions have persisted based on beliefs and theoretical concerns. The aim of this review is to highlight common preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure catheterization laboratory practices where evidence has accumulated over the past few decades to support or discount traditionally held practices.

Current Indications for Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Using Transcatheter Aortic Valves: Valve-in-Valve, Valve-in-Ring, and Valve-in-Mitral Annulus Calcification.

Use of transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) using transcatheter aortic valves in clinical practice is limited to patients with failing bioprostheses and rings or mitral valve disease associated with severe mitral annulus calcification. Whereas the use of valve-in-valve TMVR appears to be a reasonable alternative to surgery in patients at high surgical risk, much less evidence supports valve-in-ring and valve-in-mitral annulus calcification interventions. Data on the results of TMVR in these settings are derived from small case series or voluntary registries. This review summarizes the current evidence on TMVR using transcatheter aortic valves in clinical practice from the characteristics of the TMVR candidates, screening process, performance of the procedure, and description of current results and future perspectives. TMVR using dedicated devices in native noncalcified mitral valve diseases is beyond the scope of the article.

Strategies for Successful Catheterization Laboratory Recovery From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

As the world slowly starts to recover from the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic, health care systems are now thinking about resuming elective cardiovascular procedures, including procedures in cardiac catheterization laboratories. Rebooting catheterization laboratories will be an arduous process, in part because of limited health care resources, new processes, and fears stemming from the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic. The authors propose a detailed phased-in approach that considers clinical, patient-centered, and operational strategies to safely and effectively reboot catheterization laboratory programs during these unprecedented times. This model balances the delivery of essential cardiovascular care with reduced exposure and preservation of resources. The guiding principles detailed in this review can be used by catheterization laboratory programs when restarting elective interventional procedures.

Adult congenital heart disease in Spain: health care structure and activity, and clinical characteristics.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the structure of health care delivery and the clinical characteristics of adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) attending specialized centers in Spain. METHODS: A survey was conducted among 32 Spanish centers in 2014. The centers were classified into 2 levels based on their resources. In 2017, a clinical dataset was collected of all consecutive patients attended for a 2-month period at these centers. RESULTS: A total of 31 centers (97%) completed the survey. Seven centers without specialized ACHD clinics were excluded from the analysis. In 2005, only 5 centers met the requirements for specific care. In 2014, there were 10 level 1 and 14 level 2 centers, with a total of 19 373 patients under follow-up. Health care structure was complete in most centers but only 33% had ACHD nurse specialists on staff and 29% had structured transition programs. Therapeutic procedures accounted for 99% and 91% of those reported by National Registries of Cardiac Surgery and Cardiac Catheterization, respectively. Among attended patients, 48% had moderately complex lesions and 24% had highly complex lesions. Although 46% of patients attending level 2 centers had simple lesions, 17% had complex lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The structure for ACHD health care delivery in Spain complies with international recommendations and is similar to that of other developed countries. Congenital heart diseases under specialized care consist mostly of moderately and highly complex lesions, even in level 2 centers. It would be desirable to reorganize patient follow-up according to international recommendations in clinical practice.

Considerations for cardiac catheterization laboratory procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic perspectives from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Emerging Leader Mentorship (SCAI ELM) Members and Graduates.

The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is highly infectious, carries significant morbidity and mortality, and has rapidly resulted in strained health care system and hospital resources. In addition to patient-related care concerns in infected individuals, focus must also relate to diminishing community spread, protection of staff, case selection, and concentration of resources. The current document based on available data and consensus opinion addresses appropriate catheterization laboratory preparedness for treating these patients, including procedure-room readiness to minimize external contamination, safe donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) to eliminate risk to staff, and staffing algorithms to minimize exposure and maximize team availability. Case selection and management of both emergent and urgent procedures are discussed in detail, including procedures that may be safely deferred or performed bedside.

How Culture in Congenital Catheterisation has Shaped our Landscape.

We are very fortunate to work in these times of changing attitude and technical excellence.

Decision-Making in the Catheter Laboratory: The Most Important Variable in Successful Outcomes.

Increasingly the importance of how and why we make decisions in the medical arena has been questioned. Traditionally the aeronautical and business worlds have shed a light on this complex area of human decision-making. In this review we reflect on what we already know about the complexity of decision-making in addition to directing particular focus on the challenges to decision-making in the high-intensity environment of the pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory. We propose that the most critical factor in outcomes for children in the catheterization lab may not be technical failures but rather human factors and the lack of preparation and robust shared decision-making process between the catheterization team. Key technical factors involved in the decision-making process include understanding the anatomy, the indications and objective to be achieved, equipment availability, procedural flow, having a back-up plan and post-procedural care plan. Increased awareness, pre-catheterization planning, use of standardized clinical assessment and management plans and artificial intelligence may provide solutions to pitfalls in decision-making. Further research and efforts should be directed towards studying the impact of human factors in the cardiac catheterization laboratory as well as the broader medical environment.

Registries, Risk Calculators, and Risk-Adjusted Outcomes: Current Usage, Limitations, and Future Prospects.

Small study sizes are a limiting factor in assessing outcome measures in pediatric cardiology. It is even more difficult to assess the outcomes of congenital catheterizations where the sample sizes are even smaller, particularly on a individual institutional level. The creation of multicenter registries is a method by which investigators can pool data to better assess quality and outcome measures of these procedures. No registry is perfect with several being available today, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. In addition, there are a multitude of methods currently used to assess quality and outcomes from the data contained in these registries, each having its own limitations as well. Nonetheless, multicenter registrities remain one of the best available options to improve the quality of care for pediatric interventional cardiac catheterization. Below, we provide an overview of the current state of quality assessment/improvement in pediatric interventional cardiology including a review of the available registrities and the metrics used to measure quality of care and outcomes.

Phasic pressure measurements for coronary and valvular interventions using fluid-filled catheters: Errors, automated correction, and clinical implications.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to develop an automatic method for correcting common errors in phasic pressure tracings for physiology-guided interventions on coronary and valvular stenosis. BACKGROUND: Effective coronary and valvular interventions rely on accurate hemodynamic assessment. Phasic (subcycle) indexes remain intrinsic to valvular stenosis and are emerging for coronary stenosis. Errors, corrections, and clinical implications of fluid-filled catheter phasic pressure assessments have not been assessed in the current era of ubiquitous, high-fidelity pressure wire sensors. METHODS: We recruited patients undergoing invasive coronary physiology assessment. Phasic aortic pressure signals were recorded simultaneously using a fluid-filled guide catheter and 0.014″ pressure wire before and after standard calibration as well as after pullback. We included additional subjects undergoing hemodynamic assessment before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Using the pressure wire as reference standard, we developed an automatic algorithm to match phasic pressures. RESULTS: Removing pressure offset and temporal shift produced the largest improvements in root mean square (RMS) error between catheter and pressure wire signals. However, further optimization <1 mmHg RMS error was possible by accounting for differential gain and the oscillatory behavior of the fluid-filled guide. The impact of correction was larger for subcycle (like systole or diastole) versus whole-cycle metrics, indicating a key role for valvular stenosis and emerging coronary pressure ratios. CONCLUSIONS: When calibrating phasic aortic pressure signals using a pressure wire, correction requires these parameters: offset, timing, gain, and oscillations (frequency and damping factor). Automatically eliminating common errors may improve some clinical decisions regarding physiology-based intervention.

2020 Focused Update of the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee.

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is a complex valve lesion that can pose significant management challenges. This expert consensus decision pathway emphasizes that recognition of MR should prompt an assessment of its etiology, mechanism, and severity, as well as consideration of the indications for treatment. The document is a focused update of the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Management of Mitral Regurgitation, with some sections updated and others added in light of the publication of new trial data related to secondary MR, among other developments. A structured approach to evaluation based on clinical findings, accurate echocardiographic imaging, and, when necessary, adjunctive testing can help clarify decision making. Treatment goals include timely intervention by an experienced multidisciplinary heart team to prevent left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, reduced quality of life, and premature death.

SCAI publications committee manual of standard operating procedures.

Evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice are intended to help health care providers and patients make decisions, minimize inappropriate practice variation, promote effective resource use, improve clinical outcomes, and direct future research. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has been engaged in the creation and dissemination of clinical guidance documents since the 1990s. These documents are a cornerstone of the society's education, advocacy, and quality improvement initiatives. The publications committee is charged with oversight of SCAI's clinical documents program and has created this manual of standard operating procedures to ensure consistency, methodological rigor, and transparency in the development and endorsement of the society's documents. The manual is intended for use by the publications committee, document writing groups, external collaborators, SCAI representatives, peer reviewers, and anyone seeking information about the SCAI documents program.