Coronary artery ectasia, an independent predictor of no-reflow after primary PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The no-reflow phenomenon is a serious complication after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). Coronary artery ectasia (CAE) may increase the risk of no-reflow, however, only limited data is available on the potential impact of CAE. The aim of this study was to determine the potential association between CAE and no-reflow after primary PCI. METHODS: A case control study was performed based on a prospective cohort of STEMI patients from January 2000 to December 2011. All patients with TIMI 0-1 flow post primary PCI, in the absence of dissection, thrombus, spasm or high-grade residual stenosis, were considered as no-reflow case. Control subjects were two consecutive STEMI patients after each case, with TIMI flow ≥2 after primary PCI. CAE was defined as dilatation of an arterial segment to a diameter at least 1.5 times that of the adjacent normal coronary artery. RESULTS: In the no-reflow group, frequency of CAE was significantly higher (33.8% vs 3.9%, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. Baseline variables were comparable between patients with and without CAE. Patients with CAE had more often TIMI 0-1 flow pre-PCI (91% vs 71% p = 0.03), less often anterior STEMI (3% vs 37%, p < 0.001) and underwent significantly less often a PCI with stenting (47% vs 74%, p = 0.003). After multivariate analysis, CAE remained a strong and independent predictor of no-reflow (OR 13.9, CI 4.7-41.2, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: CAE is a strong and independent predictor of no-reflow after primary PCI for STEMI. Future studies should assess optimal treatment.

Characteristics of cardiac device infections in the Isala Hospital; a large volume tertiary care cardiology centre.

AIMS: To determine the frequency, characteristics and risk factors of cardiac device infections in the Isala Hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively studied all patients who underwent cardiac device procedures performed in the cardiac catheterisation lab and the operating room from 2010 to 2012. All patients who developed a cardiac device infection were reviewed for its characteristics. RESULTS: 31/2026 patients developed a cardiac device infection (1.5 %). One (3.2 %) patient died within 30 days of hospitalisation. Device infection rates for procedures in the catheterisation lab and operating room were similar (p = 0.60). Positive cultures were present in 27/31 (87 %) cases. These consisted predominantly of micro-organisms that are part of the skin flora (84 %). The mean time between device procedure and infection was 14 ± 21 months (range 0-79). Cardiac device infection was significantly associated with device revision, (65 % were revisions in patients with device infection vs. 30 % revisions in patients without device infection, p = 0.011) and placement of a left ventricular lead in pacemaker implantations (59 % of patients with vs. 51 % of patients without device infection, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The frequency of cardiac device infection was 1.5 % with a mortality of 3.2 % within 30 days, which is lower compared with other registries. Cardiac device infections were associated with device revisions and placement of left ventricular leads in pacemaker implantations.