Search

Background The use of Renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been questioned because both share a target receptor site. Methods HOPE-COVID-19 (NCT04334291) is an international investigator-initiated registry. Patients are eligible when discharged after an in-hospital stay with COVID-19, dead or alive. Here, we analyze the impact of previous and continued in-hospital treatment with RASi in all-cause mortality and the development of in-stay complications. Results We included 6503 patients, over 18 years, from Spain and Italy with data on their RASi status. Of those, 36.8% were receiving any RASi before admission. RASi patients were older, more frequently male, with more comorbidities and frailer. Their probability of death and ICU admission was higher. However, after adjustment, these differences disappeared. Regarding RASi in-hospital use, those who continued the treatment were younger, with balanced comorbidities but with less severe COVID19. Raw mortality and secondary events were less frequent in RASi. After adjustment, patients receiving RASi still presented significantly better outcomes, with less mortality, ICU admissions, respiratory insufficiency, need for mechanical ventilation or prone, sepsis, SIRS and renal failure (p

Background Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) represents the most serious complication of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and AF patients with previous ICH are a challenge for clinicians. Left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion has emerged as an alternative option for AF patients not suitable for OAT. Currently, few data are available on long term outcomes after LAA occlusion in this population. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of LAA occlusion in a cohort of patients with AF and previous ICH. Methods This is a multicenter, observational, retrospective study involving 5 LAA occlusion centers in Italy. It includes all consecutive patients (n = 120) with previous ICH who underwent LAA occlusion for nonvalvular AF and high thromboembolic risk. Procedural outcomes, post-procedural therapies and 12-months follow-up data were analyzed. Results The device was successfully implanted in 100% of cases, with a 6% of major peri-procedural complications. 59% had a prior ICH during OAT. The sample had a high risk of stroke (5.18%/year) and bleeding (6.62%/year). 30% were discharged on single and 54.2% on dual antiplatelet therapy. The expected annual risk for thromboembolism was 5.1%. Excluding periprocedural ischemic complications, the stroke annual rate was 1.8%. The expected annual risk of bleeding was 6.7%. The observed annual bleeding rate was 5.45%. Conclusions Percutaneous LAA occlusion is an effective option for AF patients and previous intracranial hemorrhage. After LAA occlusion, a single antiplatelet therapy strategy could be considered for patients with the highest risk of recurrent bleeding.

Background: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) showed to be effective in dilating heavily calcified de novo coronary lesions but little is known about its performance in under-expanded stents management. Aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, effectiveness and safety of IVL for the treatment of stent underexpansion refractory to balloon dilatation. Methods: A multicentre, retrospective cohort analysis was performed in patients undergoing IVL to treat under-expanded stents following non-compliant balloon expansion failure. Primary endpoint was successful IVL dilatation defined as IVL balloon delivery and application at the target site followed by an increase of at least 1 mm2 in minimal stent cross-sectional area (MSA) on intracoronary imaging or an increase of at least 20% in minimal stent diameter (MSD) by quantitative coronary analysis (QCA). Results: Thirty-nine under-expanded stents (34 patients) were included. Two cases (5.1%) of multiple stent layers and one (2.5%) acutely under-expanded stent were treated. The median IVL balloon diameter was 3.1 mm (IQR: 2.5–3.5 mm) while the number of pulses emitted was 56.7 (IQR: 30–80). IVL was successful in 34 cases (87.1%), with significant improvement in MSD (post: 3.23 mm [IQR: 3–3.5 mm] vs. pre: 0.81 mm [IQR: 0.35–1.2], p < 0.00001) and MSA (post: 7.61mm2 [IQR: 6.43–7.79mm2] vs. pre: 3.35 [IQR: 2.8–4 mm2], p < 0.00001). Non-fatal peri-procedural ST-elevation myocardial infarction occurred in one case (2.5%) due to IVL balloon rupture. No cardiac death, target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis occurred in-hospital and at 30-day follow-up. Conclusions: Bailout IVL was feasible, efficacious and safe to improve refractory stent under-expansion.

To investigate the impact of pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) monitoring on survival of cardiogenic shock(CS), in the light of the controversies in available evidence.MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and Web of Science were systematically screened to identify most relevant studies on patients with CS comparing PAC use to non-use during hospital stay. Short-term mortality was the primary endpoint and the use of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS) devices was the secondary one.Six observational studies including 1,166,762 patients were selected. The most frequent etiology of CS was post-myocardial infarction (75% [95% CI 55-89%] in PAC-group and 81%[95% CI 47-95%] in non-PAC group). Overall, PAC was used in 33%(95% CI 24-44%) of cases. Pooling data adjusted for confounders, a significant association between the PAC-group and a reduction in short-term mortality emerged when compared to the non-PAC group (36%[95% CI 27-45%] vs 47%[95% CI 35-59%];AdjustedOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.87, p0.01). MCS use was significantly higher in PAC vs non-PAC group (59% [95% CI 54-65%]) vs 48% [95% CI 43-53%]);OR 1.60 [95% CI 1.27-2.02, p0.01]).PAC was associated with lower incidence of short-term mortality in CS pooling adjusted observational studies. Prospective studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis and better clarify the mechanisms of this potential prognostic benefit.

Background COronaVIrus Disease 19 (COVID-19) led to the reorganization of Cardiology Units in terms of working spaces and healthcare personnel. In this scenario, both outpatient visits and elective interventional cardiology procedures were suspended and/or postponed. We aimed to report the impact of COVID-19 on interventional coronary and structural procedures in Piedmont, Italy. Methods The number of coronary angiographies (CAG), percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), primary PCI (pPCI), transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVR) and Mitraclip performed in Piedmont between March 1st and April 20th, 2020 (CoV-time) were collected from each catheterization laboratory and compared to the number of procedures performed the year before in the same months (NoCoV-time). Results Procedural data from 18 catheterization laboratories were collected. Both coronary (5498 versus 2888: difference: −47.5%; mean 305.4 VS 160.4; p = 0.002) and structural (84 versus 17: difference: −79.8%; mean 4.7 Vs 0.9; p, Highlights • COronaVIrus Disease 19 (COVID-19) led to the reorganization of Cardiology Units • Interventional procedures during COVID-19 suffered a dramatic decrease in Piedmont • Structured clinical pathways should be created, together with awareness campaigns.

Transradial access (TRA) is often avoided in favor of the transfemoral access (TFA) during percutaneous coronary interventions of the unprotected left main coronary artery (ULM), due to technical and safety concerns. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of TRA and TFA in the treatment of ULM with second-generation drug-eluting stents. Consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention on ULM with second-generation drug-eluting stents were retrospectively enrolled in the multicenter Failure in Left Main Study With 2nd Generation Stents (FAILS 2) registry. Patients were stratified according to the arterial access. The choice between TRA and TFA was left to each operator's preferences. Bleedings during index hospitalization were the primary end point. Secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, reinfarction, and target lesion revascularization), the single components of major adverse cardiovascular events at follow-up and stent thrombosis. Propensity score matching was executed to account for possible confounding. Overall, 1,247 patients were enrolled (23.2% [289] of female gender, mean age 70.2 ± 10.2 years). Diagnosis at presentation was stable angina in 603 (48.7%) cases, non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in 465 (37.3%), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in 117 (9.5%). Mean follow-up was 726 ± 654 days. After propensity score with matching, 354 patients were included. The primary end point was significantly reduced in patients treated with TRA (2.0% vs 4.0%, p = 0.042), whereas no differences emerged pertaining the secondary end points, including target lesion revascularization and reinfarction. In conclusion, TRA may reduce in-hospital bleedings in patients undergoing percutaneous treatment of the ULM, without increasing the rate of adverse cardiovascular events at follow-up, and may therefore be safely used in the treatment of the ULM.

Incidence, predictors, and impact on prognosis of target lesion revascularization (TLR) for patients treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) on unprotected left main (ULM) remain to be defined. The present study is a multicenter study including patients treated with a second-generation DES on ULM from June 2007 to January 2015. Rate of TLR was the primary end point. All cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis were the secondary end points. A total of 1,270 patients were enrolled: after a follow-up of 650 days (230 to 1,170), 47 (3.7%) of them underwent a re–percutaneous coronary intervention TLR on the left main, 22 during a planned angiographic follow-up. Extent of coronary artery disease was similar among groups (median value of Syntax of 27 ± 10 vs 26 ± 9, p = 0.45), as localization of the lesion in the ULM. Of patients reporting with TLR on ULM, 56% presented with a focal restenosis, 33% diffuse and 10% proliferative. At multivariate analysis, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus increased risk of TLR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.0: 1.1 to 3.6, p = 0.04), whereas use of intravascular ultrasound resulted protective (HR 0.5: 0.3 to 0.9, p = 0.02). At follow-up, rates of cardiovascular death did not differ among the 2 groups (4% vs 4%, p = 0.95). At multivariate analysis, TLR on LM did not increase risk of all cause death (HR 0.4: 0.1 to 1.6, p = 0.22), whereas cardiogenic shock and III tertile of Syntax portended a worse prognosis (HR 4.5: 2.1 to 10.2, p = 0.01 and HR 1.4: 1.1 to 1.6, p = 0.03, respectively). In conclusion, repeated revascularization after implantation of second-generation DES on ULM represents an unfrequent event, being increased in insulin-dependent patients and reduced by intravascular ultrasound. Impact on prognosis remains neutral, being related to clinical presentation and extent of coronary artery disease.

Background Randomized clinical trials on bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) enrolled patients with simple coronary lesions. The present study was sought to give preliminary findings about safety of BRS implantation in overlap in long coronary lesions. Methods From June 2012 to January 2015, we prospectively collected data from 162 consecutive patients receiving overlapping BRS implantation in the 16 participating institutions. We applied a propensity-score to match BRS-treated patients with 162 patients receiving second generation drug eluting stents (DES) in overlap. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results DOCE rate did not significantly differ between the two groups (5.6% in BRS group vs. 7.4% in DES group, HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.37–3.55, p=0.6). Also stent/scaffold thrombosis did not differ between groups (1.2% in BRS group vs. 1.9% in DES group, p=0.6). Occurrence of procedural-related myocardial injury was significantly higher in the BRS group (25% vs. 12%, p=0.001), although it was not related to DOCE (HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.97–1.2, p=0.2). Imaging techniques and enhanced stent visualization systems were significantly more employed in the BRS group (p=0.0001 for both). Procedure length, fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were significantly higher in the BRS group (p=0.001, p=0.001 and p=0.01, respectively). Conclusions Overlapping BRS utilization in long coronary lesions showed a comparable DOCE rate at 1year if compared to second generation DES. Further and larger studies are on demand to confirm our findings.

Background A lack of clarity exists about the role of complete coronary revascularization in patients presenting with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Objectives The aim of our study was to compare long-term outcomes in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events of 2 different complete coronary revascularization strategies in patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: 1-stage percutaneous coronary intervention (1S-PCI) during the index procedure versus multistage percutaneous coronary intervention (MS-PCI) complete coronary revascularization during the index hospitalization. Methods In the SMILE (Impact of Different Treatment in Multivessel Non ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients: One Stage Versus Multistaged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, 584 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 manner to 1S-PCI or MS-PCI. The primary study endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, which were defined as cardiac death, death, reinfarction, rehospitalization for unstable angina, repeat coronary revascularization (target vessel revascularization), and stroke at 1 year. Results The occurrence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the 1-stage group (1S-PCI: n = 36 [13.63%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 61 [23.19%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.549 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.363 to 0.828]; p = 0.004). The 1-year rate of target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the MS-PCI group (1S-PCI: n = 22 [8.33%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 40 [15.20%]; HR: 0.522 [95% CI: 0.310 to 0.878]; p = 0.01; p log-rank = 0.013). When the analyses were limited to cardiac death (1S-PCI: n = 9 [3.41%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 14 [5.32%]; HR: 0.624 [95% CI: 0.270 to 1.441]; p = 0.27) and myocardial infarction (1S-PCI: n = 7 [2.65%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 10 [3.80%]; HR: 0.678 [95% CI: 0.156 to 2.657]; p = 0.46), no significant differences were observed between groups. Conclusions In multivessel non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, complete 1-stage coronary revascularization is superior to multistage PCI in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. (Impact of Different Treatment in Multivessel Non ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [NSTEMI] Patients: One Stage Versus Multistaged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] [SMILE]: NCT01478984)

Article history: Received 24 January 2016 Accepted 2 February 2016 Available online 4 February 2016 methods were previously published [6]. A high risk plaque was defined at least one of the following criteria: (i) a necrotic core with high attenuation value (attenuation value b30 HU), (ii) positive remodelling. CMR Data Acquisition and Image Analysis: All CMR studies were acquired using a 1.5 T MRI system (Philips Achieva, Philips Medical System, Best, The Netherlands), the LGE images were analyzed by