The impact of Heart Team discussion on decision making for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Revascularization guidelines support routine Heart Team (HT) discussion of appropriate patients. The effect of HT on decision making and clinical outcomes has not been explored. The aim of our study is to investigate the impact of the HT on the mode and delay to revascularization. METHODS: We compared data from a prospective cohort of consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) referred for HT discussion between 2016 and 2017 (HT group) with a historic control group of patients matched according to clinical and angiographic characteristics treated between 2005 and 2015 (No HT group). RESULTS: There were 93 patients in each group. The HT group and the No HT groups had a similar rate of ACS as well as cardiovascular risk factors and significant left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. No difference was observed in the mean Society of Thoracic Surgery score (2.5 ± 3 vs 3 ± 3; P = .32) and the mean SYNTAX score was low and similar in both groups (21 ± 6 vs 19 ± 6; P = .59). The treatment recommendations changed greatly, with 63% of patients being referred for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after HT discussion but only 23% in the No HT group (P < .01). HT discussion led to a significant delay to PCI (8 ± 5 vs 1.8 ± 4 days; P = .02), while surgical revascularization times were not affected. CONCLUSION: HT discussion in patients with multivessel CAD was associated with an increased referral to CABG but led to a significant delay in revascularization by angioplasty. The impact of these findings on patient satisfaction and outcome should be further investigated.

Epidemiology, pathophysiology and contemporary management of cardiogenic shock - a position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome with extremely high mortality, developing as a continuum, and progressing from the initial insult (underlying cause) to the subsequent occurrence of organ failure and death. There is a large spectrum of CS presentations resulting from the interaction between an acute cardiac insult and a patient's underlying cardiac and overall medical condition. Phenotyping patients with CS may have clinical impact on management because classification would support initiation of appropriate therapies. CS management should consider appropriate organization of the health care services, and therapies must be given to the appropriately selected patients, in a timely manner, whilst avoiding iatrogenic harm. Although several consensus-driven algorithms have been proposed, CS management remains challenging and substantial investments in research and development have not yielded proof of efficacy and safety for most of the therapies tested, and outcome in this condition remains poor. Future studies should consider the identification of the new pathophysiological targets, and high-quality translational research should facilitate incorporation of more targeted interventions in clinical research protocols, aimed to improve individual patient outcomes. Designing outcome clinical trials in CS remains particularly challenging in this critical and very costly scenario in cardiology, but information from these trials is imperiously needed to better inform the guidelines and clinical practice. The goal of this review is to summarize the current knowledge concerning the definition, epidemiology, underlying causes, pathophysiology and management of CS based on important lessons from clinical trials and registries, with a focus on improving in-hospital management.

Intracoronary nitroprusside for the prevention of the no-reflow phenomenon after primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test whether nitroprusside (NTP) injected intracoronary immediately before primary angioplasty for acute ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) prevents no-reflow and improves vessel flow and myocardial perfusion. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients presenting with STEMI were evenly randomized to receive either NTP (60 microg) or placebo. The drug was selectively injected into the infarct-related artery, distal to the occlusion, in a double-blind manner. The primary end points were postintervention angiographic corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count and the proportion of patients with complete (>70%) ST-segment elevation resolution. Secondary end points included myocardial blush score and clinical outcome at 6 months follow-up. RESULTS: Mean (+/-SD) age was 62 (+/-12) years, and 87% were men. Baseline characteristics (excluding sex) did not differ between groups. The corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction frame count after angioplasty was 20.8 (+/-18.6) and 20.3 (+/-21.3) in patients given NTP and placebo, respectively (P = .78). Complete ST-segment resolution was achieved in 61.7% and 61.2% of NTP and placebo subjects, respectively (P = .96). The distribution of myocardial blush score did not differ between groups. At 6 months, the rate of target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, or death occurred in 6.3% of the NTP group and 20.0% of the placebo group (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI, selective intracoronary administration of a fixed dose of NTP failed to improve coronary flow and myocardial tissue reperfusion but improved clinical outcomes at 6 months.