Myocardial infarction care in low and high socioeconomic environments: claims data analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, claims data have not been used to study outcome differences between low and high socioeconomic status (SES) patients surviving ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in the Netherlands. AIM: To evaluate STEMI and NSTEMI care among patients with low and high SES in the referral area of three Dutch percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centres, using claims data as a source. METHODS: STEMI and NSTEMI patients treated in 2015-2017 were included. Patients' SES scores were collected based on their postal code via an open access government database. In patients with low (SES1) and high (SES4) status, revascularisation strategies and secondary prevention medication were compared. RESULTS: A total of 2065 SES1 patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 58% NSTEMI) and 1639 SES4 patients (age 68 ± 13 years, 63% NSTEMI) were included. PCI use was lower in SES1 compared to SES4 in both STEMI (80% vs 84%, p < 0.012) and NSTEMI (42% vs 48%, p < 0.002) patients. Coronary artery bypass grafting was performed more often in SES1 than in SES4 in both STEMI (7% vs 4%, p = NS) and NSTEMI (11% vs 7%, p < 0.001) patients. Optimal medical therapy use in STEMI patients was higher in SES1 compared to SES4 (52% vs 46%, p = 0.01) but comparable among NSTEMI patients (39% vs 40%, p = NS). One-year mortality was comparable in SES1 and SES4 patients following STEMI (14% vs 16%, p = NS) and NSTEMI (10% vs 11%, p = NS). CONCLUSION: Combined analysis of claims data and area-specific socioeconomic statistics can provide unique insight into how to improve myocardial infarction care for low and high SES patients.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The importance of revascularisation of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is unclear. Despite the lack of randomised controlled trials comparing different revascularisation strategies, guidelines currently recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with significant proximal CAD undergoing TAVI. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a systematic search was conducted to identify studies comparing TAVI with and without PCI in patients with significant CAD on pre-TAVI coronary angiography. Endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction and major bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 14 studies were included, involving 3838 patients, of whom 1806 (47%) underwent PCI before TAVI. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between TAVI with and without preceding PCI at 30 days, 1 year and > 1 year. There were no significant differences in risk of cardiac death, stroke or myocardial infarction between the groups. However, TAVI performed with PCI resulted in a higher risk of major bleeding within 30 days after TAVI (odds ratio: 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.94). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients with concomitant significant CAD who were treated with TAVI with and without preceding PCI at both short- and long-term follow-up. However, there was a higher risk of major bleeding at 30 days in patients undergoing TAVI with preceding PCI. In the context of serious risk of bias in the included studies, results of randomised controlled trials are warranted.

VA-ECMO With IABP is Associated With Better Outcome Than VA-ECMO Alone in the Treatment of Cardiogenic Shock in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether combining venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) improves outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) over VA-ECMO alone. BACKGROUND: VA-ECMO is an upcoming technique in the treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS); however, it increases afterload. IABP + VA-ECMO has been suggested to reduce afterload and increase survival. METHODS: A multicenter in-hospital registry was maintained on all patients undergoing VA-ECMO or VA-ECMO + IABP treatment for CS in STEMI. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2018, a total of 18 patients with STEMI underwent VA-ECMO ± IABP treatment for CS. The majority (n = 14; 78%) were male and median age was 59 years (interquartile range, 47-75 years). VA-ECMO + IABP was performed in 7 patients (39%) and VA-ECMO alone was performed in 11 patients (61%). The VA-ECMO + IABP group had more complex coronary anatomy and a higher number of patients with left main (LM) disease, LM + 3-vessel disease, or 3-vessel disease (VA-ECMO + IABP 86% vs VA-ECMO alone 18%; P=.03). The Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (SAVE) score did not differ between the groups (VA-ECMO alone -5.9 ± 2.4 vs VA-ECMO + IABP -6.1 ± 2.6; P=.88). The SYNTAX score was higher in the VA-ECMO + IABP group (32 ± 13 vs 22 ± 14 in the VA-ECMO alone group). In the total group, a SAVE score of -6 had a predicted survival of 25%-35%. Survival in the VA-ECMO + IABP group was 100% (7/7) and survival in the VA-ECMO group was 55% (6/11); P=.04. Good neurological outcome was achieved in more patients in the VA-ECMO + IABP group (VA-ECMO alone 45% vs VA-ECMO + IABP 100%; P=.04). CONCLUSION: In STEMI complicated by CS, VA-ECMO + IABP leads to a lower observed mortality and higher observed good neurological outcome.