Search

The globe is currently in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. This pandemic has placed considerable stress on health care resources and providers. This document from the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology- Association Canadienne de Cardiologie d'intervention, specifically addresses the implications for the care of patients in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL) in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic. The key principles of this document are to maintain essential interventional cardiovascular care while minimizing risks of COVID-19 to patients and staff and maintaining the overall health care resources. As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, procedures will be increased or reduced based on the current level of restriction to health care services. Although some consistency across the country is desirable, provincial and regional considerations will influence how these recommendations are implemented. We believe the framework and recommendations in this document will provide crucial guidance for clinicians and policy makers on the management of coronary and structural procedures in the CCL as the COVID-19 pandemic escalates and eventually abates.

Once considered a childhood disease, the number of adults living with congenital heart disease (CHD) has now exceeded the number of pediatric patients. The landscape of percutaneous intervention for adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) has evolved over the past decade and has yet to be characterized in Canada. The aim of this study was to begin to understand the current infrastructure underlying ACHD interventions in Canada and to characterize the type and number of interventions being carried out across the country. A cross-sectional national survey was distributed by e-mail to all cardiac catheterization laboratory directors in 2015. All Canadian laboratories involved in ACHD interventions responded, encompassing 19 institutions spanning 69 cardiac catheterization laboratories. A total of 1451 percutaneous interventions were recorded. Nationwide, the most common simple ACHD interventions were for atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale closures. The most common ACHD interventions of increased complexity were for coarctation stenting and transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation. There was a marked clustering of procedures in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta in keeping with Canada's population-density distribution. A total of 23 ACHD operators were identified, half of whom had ACHD-specific fellowship training. These data can be used as a starting point to inform the present state of affairs in the area and lay the groundwork for further work to assess resource allocation and human resource planning for the care of patients with ACHD in Canada.

Cardiovascular disease encompasses coronary artery disease and valvular heart disease, and the prevalence of both increases with age. Over the past decade, the landscape of interventional cardiology has evolved to encompass a new set of percutaneous procedures outside the coronary tree, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transcatheter mitral valve repair, and left atrial appendage occlusion. These interventions have sparked a new discipline within interventional cardiology referred to as structural heart disease (SHD) intervention. The access to and numbers of such procedures performed in Canada is currently unknown. This "first of its kind" survey of structural interventions provides insight into the landscape of SHD intervention in Canada and the challenges faced by cardiologists to deliver this important care.

Background Post–transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel is common practice to reduce ischemic complications despite the lack of clinical trial evidence demonstrating superiority over mono-antiplatelet therapy (MAPT). Methods A systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies that investigated DAPT vs MAPT in patients who have undergone TAVI. Outcomes of interest included both ischemic and bleeding events at 30 days and 6 months. Results Four studies met inclusion criteria–2 randomized control trials and 2 observational studies, with 286 patients in the DAPT group and 354 patients in the MAPT group. For the primary outcome of a combined end point of 30-day major stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and combined lethal and major bleeding, there was a trend toward increased harm in the DAPT group (29%) compared with the MAPT group (16%), with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.88 ( P = 0.05). Secondary outcome analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between groups regarding 30-day stroke, 30-day spontaneous MI, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Patients who received DAPT had a significant increase in combined 30-day lethal and major bleeding (OR, 2.62; P = 0.008). Further analysis revealed that increased adverse events were driven by observational studies, with no difference in outcomes between groups in randomized controlled trials. Conclusions DAPT in patients who have undergone TAVI demonstrated no benefit over MAPT in reduction of ischemic events, with a trend toward increased harm because of bleeding. Future considerations should be given to MAPT with clopidogrel alone, as well as the omission of clopidogrel loading before the procedure.

In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) are superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing target lesion revascularization (TLR). However, recent reports suggest there may be an increase in late stent thrombosis with long-term follow-up in PES-treated patients.Prospectively collected data from a regional cardiac referral centre were analyzed to compare PES versus BMS in all consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from April 2003 to March 2004. Outcomes included combined death, myocardial infarction and clinically driven TLR, as well as stent thrombosis at four years follow-up.A total of 512 patients were treated with PES and 722 patients with BMS. At four years, there was 92% follow-up in both groups. The composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 13.9% in the PES group compared with 20% in the BMS group (P=0.01). This difference was primarily driven by the reduction in TLR in the PES cohort (3.9% versus 8%, P0.01). The rate of definite stent thrombosis was 1.6% in the PES group compared with 0.4% in the BMS group (P=0.03).While PES offers an absolute 4.1% reduction in clinically driven TLR at four years, there is an associated increased risk of stent thrombosis. Further long-term studies addressing clinical outcomes including stent thrombosis with PES versus BMS are required to clarify this risk/ benefit balance.

In randomized trials, paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents (BMS) in reducing restenosis. However, the effectiveness of PES in patients treated during routine practice has not been fully established.A retrospective comparison of PES with BMS in consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from April 2003 to March 2004 was conducted. Outcomes included the composite of death, myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at one year, as well as stent thrombosis.A total of 512 patients were treated with PES, and 722 patients were treated with BMS. Patients in the PES group were more likely to receive stents that were 20 mm in length or longer (52.2% versus 33.3%, P0.0001), 2.5 mm in diameter or smaller (29.1% versus 12.5%, P0.0001) and implanted in bifurcation positions (15.4% versus 11.6%, P=0.02). At one year, the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction and TLR was 6.1% in the PES group compared with 10.8% in the BMS group (P=0.004). The one-year rate of stent thrombosis was 0.59% in the PES group compared with 0.28% in the BMS group (P=0.4).Despite being used in higher-risk lesions, there was a lower rate of major cardiac events at one year in patients treated with PES, primarily driven by the reduction in TLR. Thus, the experience with PES in contemporary practice applied to a broader population appears to be consistent with the results reported in randomized trials.