Search

Coronary artery disease is caused by the buildup of atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary arteries, affecting the blood supply to the heart, one of the leading causes of death around the world. X-ray coronary angiography is the most common procedure for diagnosing coronary artery disease, which uses contrast material and x-rays to observe vascular lesions. With this type of procedure, blood flow in coronary arteries is viewed in real-time, making it possible to detect stenoses precisely and control percutaneous coronary interventions and stent insertions. Angiograms of coronary arteries are used to plan the necessary revascularisation procedures based on the calculation of occlusions and the affected segments. However, their interpretation in cardiac catheterisation laboratories presently relies on sequentially evaluating multiple 2D image projections, which limits measuring lesion severity, identifying the true shape of vessels, and analysing quantitative data. In silico modelling, which involves computational simulations of patient-specific data, can revolutionise interventional cardiology by providing valuable insights and optimising treatment methods. This paper explores the challenges and future directions associated with applying patient-specific in silico models in catheterisation laboratories. We discuss the implications of the lack of patient-specific in silico models and how their absence hinders the ability to accurately predict and assess the behaviour of individual patients during interventional procedures. Then, we introduce the different components of a typical patient-specific in silico model and explore the potential future directions to bridge this gap and promote the development and utilisation of patient-specific in silico models in the catheterisation laboratories.

Background Moderate sedation is performed frequently in the hospital setting for same-day, invasive procedures. The primary administrators of moderate sedation are nurses who have been trained to administer medication based on patient responsiveness, airway, ventilation and cardiovascular function. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of nurse--administered conscious sedation by assessing medication use, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Methods Data from same--day, elective procedures in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory and interventional radiology departments were collected, including comorbidities, procedural characteristics and post--sedation questionnaires. Results Procedure duration was found to be longer in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (55 minutes; interquartile range: 37-81 minutes) than in interventional radiology (24 minutes; interquartile range 16-45 minutes; P value of <0.001). Associated comorbidities in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory compared to interventional radiology included hypertension in 103 patients (78% vs 44.7%, P=<0.001), heart failure in 23 patients (17.4% vs 3.2%, P=<0.001), arrhythmias in 20 patients (15.2% vs 1%, P=0.1), and chronic kidney disease in 44 patients (33.3% vs 14.9%, P=0.002). Conclusions: Patients receiving conscious sedation while undergoing procedures in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory and interventional radiology were found to have no adverse clinical outcomes, as evidenced by the absence of reversal agents and advanced airway requirements. The procedural duration of the catheterisation procedures were significantly longer than interventional radiology and patients received overall less sedation medication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis has led to a relative unavailability of anaesthesiological support for non-acute cardiac care. Currently, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) is predominantly performed as an elective catheterisation laboratory (cath lab) procedure. Hence, the performance of TAVI could come to a halt amidst the COVID-19 crisis. Our study population comprised 90 patients treated with TF-TAVI, with local analgesia performed by our dedicated cath lab nurses. The patients had a mean age of 80 ± 5 years and 59% were male, with a predicted surgical risk of 2.2 ± 0.9/3.1 ± 2.4% (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality [STS-PROM] score/EuroSCORE II), depicting a contemporary, lower-risk population. The composite endpoint of device success (Valve Academic Research Consortium [VARC]-2) was reached in all patients. No patients showed more than mild paravalvular leakage (3/90, 3.3%). Overall, intravenous medication was sparsely used during the procedure, with 48 of the 90 (53%) patients receiving no unplanned intravenous medication. There was neither procedural nor in-hospital mortality. The performance of TF-TAVI using local analgesia only, managed by a dedicated nurse instead of an anaesthesiologist, was shown to be feasible and safe in a selected group of patients. This strategy may (temporarily) eliminate the need for an anaesthesiologist to be present in the cath lab and enables ongoing TAVI treatment amidst the global COVID-19 crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: Lengthy resuscitations in the catheterisation laboratory carry extremely high rates of mortality because it is essentially impossible to perform effective chest compressions during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of a mechanical chest compression device, LUCAS™, in the catheterisation laboratory, in patients who suffered circulatory arrest requiring prolonged resuscitation. Materials and methods: The study population was comprised of patients who arrived alive to the catheterisation laboratory and then required mechanical chest compression at some time during the angiogram, PCI or pericardiocentesis between 2004 and 2008 at the Lund University Hospital. This is a retrospective registry analysis. Results: During the study period, a total of 3058 patients were treated with PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) of whom 118 were in cardiogenic shock and 81 required defibrillations. LUCAS™ was used in 43 patients (33 STEMI, 7 non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 2 elective PCIs and 1 patient with tamponade). Five patients had tamponade due to myocardial rupture prior to PCI that was revealed at the start of the PCI, and all five died. Of the remaining 38 patients, 1 patient underwent a successful pericardiocentesis and 36 were treated with PCI. Eleven of these patients were discharged alive in good neurological condition. Conclusion: The use of mechanical chest compressions in the catheterisation laboratory allows for continued PCI or pericardiocentesis despite ongoing cardiac or circulatory arrest with artificially sustained circulation. It is unlikely that few, if any, of the patients would have survived without the use of mechanical chest compressions in the catheterisation laboratory. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is a significant health crisis that impacts every healthcare system worldwide, and has led to a dramatic change in dealing with different diseases during the pandemic. Interventional cardiologists are frontline workers who deal with many cardiovascular emergencies, either in patients with proven COVID-19 or in suspected cases. Many heart associations worldwide are currently setting appropriate recommendations for the management of emergency cardiac interventions. In this expert opinion, the authors highlight the essential requirements in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory during the COVID-19 pandemic., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020, Radcliffe Cardiology.)

Background: Balloon atrial septostomy is performed in infants with dextro-transposition of the great arteries to improve oxygenation before surgery. It is performed in the catheterisation laboratory with fluoroscopy or at the bedside using echocardiography. It is unclear whether procedural safety and efficacy is superior in one location versus the other, although the bedside procedure may improve resource utilisation and present an opportunity for reducing cost. This study compares safety and efficacy of atrial septostomy performed at the patient's bedside versus the catheterisation laboratory., Methods: Neonates with dextro-transposition of the great arteries who underwent balloon atrial septostomy from October, 2000 to January, 2014 were included. Medical and procedural records, echocardiograms, and catheterisation data were reviewed. Comparisons between the two procedural locations included patient demographics, pre- and post-procedure oxygen saturations, and outcomes. Complications reviewed included bleeding, arrhythmia, cardiac trauma, stroke, and death. Coronary artery evaluations were recorded. T-tests were used for continuous variables, and Fisher's exact tests were used for all categorical variables. Wilcoxon rank sum and analysis of covariance modelling were used for time variables and oxygen saturation, respectively., Results: A total of 88 infants met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 53 underwent septostomy at the bedside and 35 underwent septostomy in the catheterisation laboratory. No safety or outcome benefit was identified between the two procedural locations., Conclusion: Septostomy performed at the bedside and in the catheterisation laboratory had similar outcomes and efficacy. Further, bedside septostomy has the advantage of no radiation exposure, and obviating risks with patient transfer from the ICU to the catheterisation laboratory.