Search

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of critical end-organ hypoperfusion primarily due to cardiac dysfunction. This condition is the most common cause of death in patients affected by acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite early revascularization, prompt optimal medical therapy, and up-to-date mechanical circulatory supports, mortality of patients with CS remains high.The objective of this review is to summarize epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment options of CS in light of the new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) recommendations. The latest European guidelines on myocardial revascularization have reviewed the previous guidelines with respect to early multivessel revascularization and routine use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with AMI-related CS.Most of the current evidences come partly from randomized trials, but mostly from observational registries because of the difficulty to test different treatments in this life-threatening clinical setting.Some of the latest studies highlight the potential crucial benefit of newly introduced mechanical circulatory support devices, although evidences are not sufficient to definitely assess the benefit/risk ratio of the different systems.Many questions remain unanswered in this field, and further trials are advocated to better elucidate the best medical, reperfusion, and circulatory support approaches aimed to improve the poor prognosis of patients with CS after AMI.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this observational study was to determine the benefits of the novel, orally delivered P2Y12 -inhibitors (Is) in terms of angiographic endpoints and in relation to the time of the loading dose (LD) administration. BACKGROUND The goal of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treatment is timely reperfusion. The P2Y12 -Is prasugrel and ticagrelor have improved the angiographic outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) and patients' prognosis. However, their onset of action is impaired in STEMI and delayed by their oral administration. METHODS The 328 eligible patients with STEMI consecutively referred for pPCI were divided into three groups depending on the interval of "P2Y12 -I LD administration-to-balloon time": Group 2 included patients that received P2Y12 -I LD at least 60 min prior to pPCI, Group 1 within 60 min prior to pPCI, and Group 0 at the moment of pPCI. Angiographic, clinical, and biochemical parameters were evaluated. Pre- and post-pPCI TIMI flow grade (TFG) and ST resolution (STR) were used as outcome measures to determine efficacy and optimal timing of pretreatment. RESULTS Pre-pPCI TFG improved with increasing P2Y12 -I LD administration-to-balloon time; pre-PCI TFG 0/1 was 74.5% in Group 0, 65.5% in Group 1 and 54.9% in Group 2 (P

Objectives This study compared left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP)–guided and urine flow rate (UFR)-guided hydration. Background Tailored hydration regimens improve the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI). Methods Between July 15, 2015, and June 6, 2019, patients at high risk for CA-AKI scheduled for coronary and peripheral procedures were randomized to 2 groups: 1) normal saline infusion rate adjusted according to the LVEDP (LVEDP-guided group); and 2) hydration controlled by the RenalGuard System in order to reach UFR ≥300 ml/h (UFR-guided group). The primary endpoint was the composite of CA-AKI (i.e., serum creatinine increase ≥25% or ≥0.5 mg/dl at 48 h) and acute pulmonary edema (PE). Major adverse events (all-cause death, renal failure requiring dialysis, PE, and sustained kidney injury) at 1 month were assessed. Results The primary endpoint occurred in 20 of 351 (5.7%) patients in the UFR-guided group and in 36 of 351 (10.3%) patients in the LVEDP-guided group (relative risk [RR]: 0.560; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.390 to 0.790; p = 0.036). CA-AKI and PE rates in the UFR-guided group and LVEDP-guided group were 5.7% and 10.0% (RR: 0.570; 95% CI: 0.300 to 0.960; p = 0.048), and, respectively, 0.3% and 2.0% (RR: 0.070; 95% CI: 0.020 to 1.160; p = 0.069). Three patients in the UFR-guided group experienced complications related to the Foley catheter. Hypokalemia rate was 6.2% in the UFR-guided group and 2.3% in the LVEDP-guided group (p = 0.013). The 1-month major adverse events rate was 7.1% in the UFR-guided group and 12.0% in the LVEDP-guided group (p = 0.030). Conclusions The study demonstrates that UFR-guided hydration is superior to LVEDP-guided hydration to prevent the composite of CA-AKI and PE.

Background Urine flow rate (UFR)-guided and left-ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP)-guided hydration regimens have been proposed to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI). The REnal Insufficiency Following Contrast MEDIA Administration triaL III (REMEDIAL III) is a randomized, multicenter, investigator-sponsored trial aiming to compare these two hydration strategies. Methods Patients at high risk for CIAKI (that is, those with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤ 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 and/or with Mehran's score ≥11 and/or Gurm's score >7) will be enrolled. Patients will be randomly assigned to (a) LVEDP-guided hydration with normal saline (LVEDP-guided group) and (b) UFR-guided hydration carried out by the RenalGuard system (RenalGuard group). Seven-hundred patients (350 in each arm) will be enrolled. In the LVEDP-guided group the fluid infusion rate will be adjusted according to the LVEDP as follows: 5 mL kg-1 hr-1 for LVEDP ≤12 mmHg, 3 mL kg-1 hr-1 for LVEDP 13-18 mmHg, and 1.5 mL kg-1 hr-1 for LVEDP >18 mmHg. In the RenalGuard group hydration with normal saline plus low-dose of furosemide is controlled by the RenalGuard system, in order to reach and maintain a high (>300 mL/hr) UFR. In all cases, iobitridol (a low-osmolar, nonionic contrast agent) will be administered. Results The primary endpoint is the composite of CIAKI (i.e., serum creatinine increase ≥25% and/or ≥0.5 mg/dL from the baseline to 48 hr after contrast media exposure) and/or acute pulmonary edema. Conclusion The REMEDIAL III will test the hypothesis that the UFR-guided hydration is superior to the LVEDP-guided hydration to prevent the composite of CIAKI and/or acute pulmonary edema.

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent evidences suggest a differential impact of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated DM on prognosis. We evaluated the clinical outcome of diabetic patients after PCI with polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent from the RUDI-FREE Registry, investigating a possible different prognostic impact of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated DM. A total of 1,104 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with polymer-free biolimus-eluting stent, enrolled in the RUDI-FREE observational, multicenter, single-arm registry, were stratified by diabetic status; diabetic population was further divided on the basis of insulin treatment. Primary end points of the study were target lesion failure (TLF; composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (composite of cardiac death, stroke, and myocardial infarction). Multiple ischemic adverse events were also single-handedly considered as secondary end points. At 1 year, TLF was significantly higher in the diabetic cohort, as compared with nondiabetic patients (6.0% vs 3.1%, p 0.022). None of the end points resulted significantly different between nondiabetics and noninsulin-treated diabetic patients. Divergently, compared with nondiabetic, insulin-treated diabetic patients faced significant higher rates of TLF (10.8% vs 3.1%, p 0.003), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (10.8% vs 3.4%, p 0.004), and of most of the analyzed adverse events. In conclusion, patients with DM had a higher risk of TLF compared with nondiabetics; nonetheless, the worse outcome of the diabetic population seems to be driven by the insulin-treated diabetic subpopulation. This finding suggests a different risk profile of insulin-treated and noninsulin-treated diabetic patients in the modern era of PCI.

Aims Polymer-free biolimus-eluting stents (PF-BES) have been shown to be superior to bare metal stents in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients treated with one-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, limited evidence is available on PF-BES in non-HBR patients. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PF-BES in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results Patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing PCI with PF-BES in routine clinical practice were included in a multicentre, prospective registry. DAPT duration was left to the discretion of the operator. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) at one year. Overall, 1,104 consecutive patients treated with PF-BES were included at 16 Italian centres. Mean age was 68.7±11.2 years, 77.2% of patients were male, 30% had diabetes, 15.1% had chronic kidney disease, and 40.5% had ACS at baseline. Mean CRUSADE score was 24.1±13.1, and 83.7% of patients did not have high bleeding risk features. At one year, the primary endpoint occurred in 4.1% of patients, cardiovascular death in 2.4%, MI in 1.8%, and definite/probable ST in 1.1%. With respect to efficacy, target lesion revascularisation occurred in 1.2% of patients. Conclusions This is the first study providing clinical evidence on the use of PF-BES in all-comer patients irrespective of HBR status. Our findings suggest that PF-BES has a favourable safety and efficacy profile in a real-world clinical setting. Further investigation in randomised clinical trials against new-generation DES is warranted.

NSTE-ACS patients are a heterogeneous population, with different clinical features and prognosis. A large proportion of them is medically managed, without any revascularization. In the EYSHOT and FAST-MI registries such patients were 40% and 35%, respectively. These patients are at higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events and have a worse prognosis compared with those receiving revascularization. Medically managed NSTE-ACS patients consist of different subgroups: those not undergoing coronary angiography, those without significant coronary artery disease, and those with coronary stenoses not referred to revascularization. Patients with NSTE-ACS for whom a conservative strategy without coronary angiogram is planned must be very carefully selected. In patients with comorbidities, frailty, or advanced age, a careful balance between benefits and risks is needed to choice the management strategy (perform or not coronary angiography and/or revascularization), as evidence-based medicine data are lacking in the setting of frailty and comorbidities. In this decisional process, it should be also taken into consideration the role of coronary anatomy in risk stratification and treatment guidance. NSTE-ACS patients managed without revascularization less frequently receive guideline-recommended pharmacological treatment. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is recommended for 12months also in medically managed patients, after careful balancing of ischemic and bleeding risk. In these patients it is mandatory to optimize pharmacological treatment, including antiplatelet therapy, to improve outcome. In NSTE-ACS medically managed, the proportion of patients discharged with DAPT should be increased in comparison with current practice, and the use of ticagrelor in place of clopidogrel should be considered in selected patients.

Background: The goal of STEMI treatment is early reperfusion. The new oral P2Y12 inhibitors (P2Y12-I) prasugrel and ticagrelor demonstrated to improve angiographic results of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) and clinical prognosis, but their onset of action is significantly impaired