Faculty Bibliography

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The SHOCK trial (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) demonstrated a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) 20 years ago. After an initial improvement in mortality related to revascularization, mortality rates have plateaued. A recent Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions classification scheme was developed to address the wide range of CS presentations. In addition, a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the development of CS centers using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management of CS, including mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS). A number of CS programs have implemented various protocols for treating patients with AMICS, including the use of MCS, and have published promising results using such protocols. Despite this, practice patterns in the cardiac catheterization laboratory vary across health systems, and there are inconsistencies in the use or timing of MCS for AMICS. Furthermore, mortality benefit from MCS devices in AMICS has yet to be established in randomized clinical trials. In this article, we outline the best practices for the contemporary interventional management of AMICS, including coronary revascularization, the use of MCS, and special considerations such as the treatment of patients with AMICS with cardiac arrest.

A 69-year-old man underwent coronary angiography 7 years after coronary artery bypass. Saphenous vein graft spasm was observed during contrast injection, resulting in ventricular fibrillation. Angiography 6 years later showed graft patency. Vein graft spasm after coronary artery bypass grafting is rarely described. Further investigation is needed regarding incidence, mechanism, and clinical outcomes. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).

Transradial intervention (TRI) was first introduced by Lucien Campeau in 1989 and since then has created a lasting impact in the field of interventional cardiology. Several studies have demonstrated that TRI is associated with fewer vascular site complications, offer earlier ambulation and greater post-procedural comfort. Patients presenting with ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) have experienced survival benefit and higher quality-of-life metrics as well with TRI. While both the updated scientific statement by the American Heart Association and the 2017 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a "radial first" approach there appears to be a lag in physicians adapting TRI as the preferred vascular access. We present a review focusing on identification and management of TRA related challenges and complications using a systematic algorithmic approach.

BACKGROUND The long-term safety of paclitaxel-coated devices (PCDs; drug-coated balloon or drug-eluting stent) for peripheral endovascular intervention is uncertain. We used data from the Veterans Health Administration to evaluate the association between PCDs, long-term mortality, and cause of death. METHODS AND RESULTS Using the Veterans Administration Corporate Data Warehouse in conjunction with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) Procedure Coding System, Current Procedural Terminology, and Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes, we identified patients with peripheral artery disease treated within the Veterans Administration for femoropopliteal artery revascularization between October 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019. An adjusted Cox regression, using stabilized inverse probability-weighted estimates, was used to evaluate the association between PCDs and long-term survival. Cause of death data were obtained using the National Death Index. In total, 10 505 patients underwent femoropopliteal peripheral endovascular intervention; 2265 (21.6%) with a PCD and 8240 (78.4%) with a non-PCD (percutaneous angioplasty balloon and/or bare metal stent). Survival rates at 2 years (77.4% versus 79.7%) and 3 years (70.7% versus 71.8%) were similar between PCD and non-PCD groups, respectively. The adjusted hazard for all-cause mortality for patients treated with a PCD versus non-PCD was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18, P=0.3013). Among patients who died between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, the cause of death according to treatment group, PCD versus non-PCD, was similar. CONCLUSIONS Among patients undergoing femoropopliteal peripheral endovascular intervention within the Veterans Administration Health Administration, there was no increased risk of long-term, all-cause mortality associated with PCD use. Cause-specific mortality rates were similar between treatment groups.

Accurate evaluation of the quality of invasive cardiology procedures requires appraisal of case selection, technical performance, and procedural and clinical outcomes. Regrettably, the medical care delivery system poses a number of obstacles to developing and sustaining a high-quality environment. The purposes of this viewpoint are to summarize the most common impediments, followed to summarize the most common impediments, followed by the optimal ways to design and sustain a quality assurance program to overcome these barriers. A 7-step program to create and implement an effective quality assurance program is outlined.

OBJECTIVE:To describe from a non-interventional registry the short-term ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes in patients with NSTEMI managed with a loading dose of a P2Y12 inhibitor (P2Y12i) given at least four hours prior to diagnostic angiography and delineation of coronary anatomy. Prior data on the effects of such "upstream loading" have been inconsistent. METHODS:In 53 US hospitals, we evaluated the in-hospital care and outcomes of patients with confirmed NSTEMI managed with an interventional strategy and loaded upstream (at least four hours before diagnostic angiography) with P2Y12 inhibitor therapy. Patients entered into the database were grouped into one of four cohorts for analysis: (1) overall cohort, (2) thienopyridine (clopidogrel or prasugrel) load, (3) ticagrelor load, and (4) ticagrelor-consistent. The fourth cohort is a subset of cohort 3 that received ticagrelor throughout the index hospital stay and at discharge. We evaluated in-hospital clinical course and ischemic and bleeding outcomes in all patients, and also 30-d outcomes in the ticagrelor-consistent cohort. RESULTS:A total of 3,355 patients were enrolled, of whom 1,087 had 30-day follow-up. The mean (+/-SD) age was 63.3+/-12.5 y and 62.6% were male. TIMI and GRACE scores placed these patients in the intermediate risk range and CRUSADE scores were in the moderate risk range. The loading dose in UPSTREAM was clopidogrel in 45.6%, ticagrelor in 53.6%, and prasugrel in 0.8%. The median upstream interval (loading dose to angiography) was 17:27 hours and did not change appreciably over the course of the data collection period (2/15 - 10/19). Access was radial in 48.6% and femoral in 51.4%. Post-angiography management was medical only in 32.3%, PCI in 59.4%, and CABG in 8.3%. Median LOS was 2.7d, and median time from angiography to CABG was 3.6d. In-hospital mortality was 0.51% and major bleeding (TIMI) was 0.24%; the in-hospital MACE rate was 0.7% and stent thrombosis occurred in 0.18%. No significant differences were seen between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel cohorts in hospital, but 16% received more than one P2Y12i in-hospital. On follow-up (93.2% response), 86.7% of patients reported taking ticagrelor as directed. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Upstream loading of P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with very low rates of bleeding and short LOS in a large cohort of NSTEMI patients managed invasively.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex condition with a high risk for morbidity and mortality. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices were developed to support patients with CS in cases refractory to treatment with vasoactive medications. Current devices include intra-aortic balloon pumps, intravascular microaxial pumps, percutaneous LVAD, percutaneous RVAD, and VA ECMO. Data from limited observational studies and clinical trials show a clear difference in the level of hemodynamic support offered by each device. However, at this point, there are insufficient clinical trial data to guide MCS selection and, until ongoing clinical trials are completed, use of the right device for the right patient depends largely on clinical judgment.