Search

Background: Balloon uncrossable lesions are defined as lesions that cannot be crossed with a balloon after successful guidewire crossing. Methods: We analyzed the association between balloon uncrossable lesions and procedural outcomes of 8671 chronic total occlusions (CTOs) percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed between 2012 and 2022 at 41 centers. Results: The prevalence of balloon uncrossable lesions was 9.2%. The mean patient age was 64.2 ± 10 years and 80% were men. Patients with balloon uncrossable lesions were older (67.3 ± 9 vs. 63.9 ± 10, p < 0.001) and more likely to have prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (40% vs. 25%, p < 0.001) and diabetes mellitus (50% vs. 42%, p < 0.001) compared with patients who had balloon crossable lesions. In-stent restenosis (23% vs. 16%. p < 0.001), moderate/severe calcification (68% vs. 40%, p < 0.001), and moderate/severe proximal vessel tortuosity (36% vs. 25%, p < 0.001) were more common in balloon uncrossable lesions. Procedure time (132 (90, 197) vs. 109 (71, 160) min, p < 0.001) was longer and the air kerma radiation dose (2.55 (1.41, 4.23) vs. 1.97 (1.10, 3.40) min, p < 0.001) was higher in balloon uncrossable lesions, while these lesions displayed lower technical (91% vs. 99%, p < 0.001) and procedural (88% vs. 96%, p < 0.001) success rates and higher major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates (3.14% vs. 1.49%, p < 0.001). Several techniques were required for balloon uncrossable lesions. Conclusion: In a contemporary, multicenter registry, 9.2% of the successfully crossed CTOs were initially balloon uncrossable. Balloon uncrossable lesions exhibited lower technical and procedural success rates and a higher risk of complications compared with balloon crossable lesions.

ObjectivesTo evaluate characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has created challenges in delivering acute cardiovascular care. Quality measures and outcomes of patients presenting with AMICS during COVID-19 in the United States have not been well described.MethodsWe identified 406 patients from the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI) with AMICS and divided them into those presenting before (N = 346, 5/9/2016-2/29/2020) and those presenting during the COVID-19 pandemic (N = 60, 3/1/2020-11/10/2020). We compared baseline clinical data, admission characteristics, and outcomes.ResultsThe median age of the cohort was 64 years, and 23.7% of the group was female. There were no significant differences in age, sex, and medical comorbidities between the two groups. Patients presenting during the pandemic were less likely to be Black compared to those presenting prior. Median door to balloon (90 vs. 88 min, p = 0.38), door to support (88 vs. 78 min, p = 0.13), and the onset of shock to support (74 vs. 62 min, p = 0.15) times were not significantly different between the two groups. Patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction more often during the COVID-19 period (95.0% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.005). In adjusted logistic regression models, COVID-19 period did not significantly associate with survival to discharge (odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-2.19, p = 0.81) or with 1-month survival (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.42-1.61, p = 0.56).ConclusionsCare of patients presenting with AMICS has remained robust among hospitals participating in the NCSI during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundAcute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.MethodsWe provide an overview of previously conducted studies on the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in the treatment of AMI-CS and difficulties which may be encountered in conducting such trials in the United States.ResultsWell powered randomized control trials are difficult to conduct in a critically ill patient population due to physician preferences, perceived lack of equipoise and challenges obtaining informed consent.ConclusionsWith growth in utilization of MCS devices in patients with AMI-CS, efforts to perform well-powered, randomized control trials must be undertaken.

BackgroundAcute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.MethodsWe provide an overview of previously conducted studies on the use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in the treatment of AMI-CS and difficulties which may be encountered in conducting such trials in the United States.ResultsWell powered randomized control trials are difficult to conduct in a critically ill patient population due to physician preferences, perceived lack of equipoise and challenges obtaining informed consent.ConclusionsWith growth in utilization of MCS devices in patients with AMI-CS, efforts to perform well-powered, randomized control trials must be undertaken.