Same day discharge following non-elective PCI for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Timing of discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a crucial aspect of procedural safety and patient turnover. We examined predictors and outcomes of same-day discharge (SDD) after non-elective PCI for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) in comparison with next-day discharge (NDD). METHODS: Baseline demographic, clinical, and procedural data were collected as were in-hospital outcomes and post-PCI length of stay (LOS) for all patients undergoing non-elective PCI for NSTE-ACS between 2011 and 2014 at a central tertiary care center. Thirty day and 1-year mortality and bleeding as well as 30-day readmission rates were determined from social security record and medical chart review. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of SDD, and propensity-matched analysis was done to examine the differences in outcomes between NDD and SDD. RESULTS: Out of 2,529 patients who underwent non-elective PCI for NSTE-ACS from 2011 to 2014, 1,385 met the inclusion criteria (mean age = 63 years; 26% women) and were discharged either the same day of (N = 300) or the day after (N = 1,085) PCI. Thirty-day and one-year mortality and major bleeding rates were similar between the 2 groups. Logistic regression identified male sex, radial access, negative troponin biomarker status, and procedure start time as predictors of SDD. In propensity-matched analyses, there was no difference in 30-day mortality and readmission between SDD and NDD groups. CONCLUSIONS: SDD after non-elective PCI for NSTE-ACS may be a reasonable alternative to NDD for selected low-risk patients with comparable mortality, bleeding, and readmission rates.

Evaluation of a Real-World In-Hospital Antiplatelet-Switching Strategy Following Coronary Interventions: The SWITCH Study.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet therapy is paramount to reduce the risk of coronary stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Newer agents are reliable and have a fast onset of action, but have significantly higher cost, leading to compliance concerns. We adopted and evaluated an acute agent-switching strategy, using prasugrel or ticagrelor for rapid and reliable periprocedural antiplatelet action, followed by a switch to generic clopidogrel. METHODS: This large, single-center study included all patients who underwent PCI between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016. Study endpoints were 30- day mortality and bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 5007 patients met inclusion criteria. Average age was 63.5 ± 12.5 years. Prior to PCI, 54.8% of patients were preloaded with ticagrelor, 8.5% with prasugrel, and 36.7% with clopidogreI. The majority of patients (93%) loaded with ticagrelor and more than half (58%) of those loaded with prasugrel were subsequently switched prior to hospital discharge to clopidogrel for long-term therapy. Patients pretreated with ticagrelor or prasugrel and switched to clopidogrel had overall lowest bleeding rates (0.9% and 0.8%, respectively). The highest rates of bleeding were noted in patients maintained on ticagrelor or clopidogrel throughout (2.5% and 1.7%, respectively). After accounting for additional periprocedural use of intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, the lowest bleeding rates were observed in patients loaded with ticagrelor and switched to clopidogrel (0.75%), with the highest bleeding observed in patients maintained on ticagrelor throughout. There were no events of acute stent thrombosis. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of using newer, fast-acting, and reliable antiplatelet agents prior to PCI and acutely switching to long-term clopidogrel therapy appears safe and efficacious. Although the superiority of the newer antiplatelet agents for long-term post-PCI dual-antiplatelet therapy in a trial setting is well established, the impact of increased adherence to lower-cost clopidogrel therapy in the real-world setting merits further consideration.

Trends, Predictors, and Outcomes Associated With 30-Day Hospital Readmissions After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in a High-Volume Center Predominantly Using Radial Vascular Access.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at high-risk for hospital readmission. We examined the rate, factors associated with, and outcomes of 30-day readmissions for patients who underwent a PCI. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of all patients who underwent PCI between 2011 and 2014 at a central New England radial first, tertiary care center. Data was collected on occurrence and cause of readmission as well as patients' bleeding events and survival at one year. Logistic regression was used to examine factors associated with 30-day readmission as well as its association with bleeding and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3858 patients were studied (mean age = 62.8 years with 26.1% women), among whom 348 (9.5%) patients were readmitted within 30-days. Cardiac causes of readmission represented 62% of all readmissions. In the multi-variable adjusted regression model, factors that were significantly associated with 30-day readmission included female gender, prior coronary bypass surgery, acute coronary syndrome, anemia, length of stay, and delay in initial presentation. Patients who were readmitted had more than twice the risk of bleeding and mortality at one year as compared to those who were not readmitted within 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results suggest that early hospital readmission after undergoing PCI is common and has not changed in recent years. Efforts should be made to identify and closely monitor patients who are at risk for readmission after PCI.

Orbital Atherectomy for Calcific Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Safety and Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous revascularization followed by transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been increasingly utilized as an alternative to surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and coronary artery disease (CAD). In many of these patients, the coronary arteries are severely calcified and may best be treated with atherectomy; however, atherectomy is not routinely performed in severe AS patients due to safety concerns. There is a paucity of data on the safety of orbital atherectomy (OA) in patients with severe AS and concurrent calcific CAD. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of all patients with severe AS who underwent OA-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at our center between September 1, 2015 and November 1, 2018. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (mean age, 82.5 ± 7.6 years) were identified. Mean aortic valve area was 0.68 ± 0.26 cm and mean aortic valve gradient was 43 ± 17.7 mm Hg. All PCIs were successful (mean diameter stenosis, 80.8 ± 11%; mean number of passes, 5.3 ± 3.3). Two patients had planned hemodynamic support, with left ventricular assist device and intra-aortic balloon pump; none of the patients required vasopressors during PCI. There was a slight reduction in heart rate during OA (71.6 bpm vs 63.3 bpm; P=.02), with no major procedure-related clinical events. Only 1 patient (4.2%) with pre-existing conduction system disease required transient pacing from his permanent pacemaker during OA. All procedures were completed successfully and there were no periprocedural deaths or clinical myocardial infarctions. CONCLUSION: OA-facilitated PCI can be safely performed in patients with severe AS and severely calcified CAD with low risk of complications. There was no significant change in blood pressure and heart rate during OA, with minimal need for temporary pacing.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Pharmacoinvasive Therapy in Transfer Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting at non-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-capable hospitals often need to be transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). This increases time to revascularization, leading to increased risk of in-hospital mortality. With recent focus on total ischemic time rather than door-to-balloon time as the principal determinant of outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, pharmacoinvasive therapy (PIT) has gained attention as a possible improvement over PPCI in patients requiring transfer. Our objective was to observe how PIT stands against PPCI in terms of safety and efficacy. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing PPCI to PIT. PIT was defined as administration of thrombolytic drugs followed by immediate PCI only in case of failed thrombolysis. Results from studies were pooled using a random-effects model. We identified 17 relevant studies (6 randomized controlled trials, 11 observational studies) including 13,037 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference in short-term mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20 [0.97 to 1.49]; I2 = 14.2%; p = 0.099); however, PIT significantly decreased short-term mortality (OR = 1.46 [1.08 to 1.96]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.01) in those studies with a symptom-onset-to-device time ≥200 minutes. There was a significantly lower risk reinfarction (OR = 0.69 [0.49 to 0.97]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.033) in the PPCI group, while the risk of cardiogenic shock was significantly higher (OR = 1.48 [1.13 to 1.94]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.005). In conclusion, PIT versus PPCI decisions should preferably be customized in patients presenting to non-PCI capable hospitals. Factors that need to be considered include symptom-onset to first medical contact time, expected time of transfer to a PCI-capable hospital, and patients risk factors.

Staged Percutaneous Intervention for Concurrent Chronic Total Occlusions in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that chronic total occlusion (CTO) in a noninfarct-related artery in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction is linked to increased mortality. It remains unclear whether staged revascularization of a noninfarct-related artery CTO in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction translates to improved outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with concurrent CTO who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of noninfarct-related artery CTO versus those who did not. METHOD AND RESULTS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, and heart failure readmission. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Random effects model was used and heterogeneity was considered if I2 >25. Six studies (n=1253 patients) were included in the analysis. There was a significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91), cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.95), and heart failure readmissions (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.89), favoring the patients in the CTO percutaneous coronary intervention group. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for all-cause mortality (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.00), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.41-1.46), repeat revascularization (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.56-2.27), and stroke (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of the noninfarct-related artery in patients presenting with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure readmissions.

Transradial Artery Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock.

Early revascularization is the gold standard for management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The use of transradial artery access (TRA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased in recent years and has emerged as a safe and effective approach to PCI in high-risk patients, with advantages in reduced major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and all-cause mortality when compared with transfemoral artery access (TFA). Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated these advantages of TRA vs. TFA PCI in STEMI patients. Although there remains a lack of dedicated randomized trials in CS, observational data suggest benefits on the same endpoints as in STEMI with TRA vs. TFA PCI in CS. This review summarizes the existing literature on the use of TRA compared to TFA for STEMI and CS patients; the reduction of major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and mortality associated with TRA in STEMI and CS; and technical considerations and challenges in the care of these high-risk patient populations.