Faculty Bibliography

The worldwide pandemic caused by the novel acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in a new and lethal disease termed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although there is an association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, the majority of patients who need cardiovascular care for the management of ischemic heart disease may not be infected with this novel coronavirus. The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a recognition of two major challenges in providing recommendations for AMI care in the COVID-19 era. Cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are complex with patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, stress cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury, and the prevalence of COVID-19 disease in the US population remains unknown with risk of asymptomatic spread. This document addresses the care of these patients focusing on (a) varied clinical presentations; (b) appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) for health care workers; (c) the roles of the emergency department, emergency medical system, and the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL); and (4) regional STEMI systems of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for STEMI patients at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely manner, with an expert team outfitted with PPE in a dedicated CCL room. A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI-capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option.

BACKGROUND:Procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin (BIV), trans-radial intervention (TRI), and use of a vascular closure device (VCD) are thought to mitigate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related bleeding. We compared the impact of these bleeding avoidance strategies (BAS) for PCIs stratified by bleeding risk. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of PCIs from 18 facilities within one health care system from 2009Q3 to 2017Q4. Bleeding risk was assessed per the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI bleeding model, with procedures stratified into 6 categories (first, second, third quartiles, 75th-90th, 90th-97.5th, and top 2.5th percentiles). Regression models were used to assess the impact of BAS on bleeding outcome. RESULTS:Of 74 953 PCIs, 9.4% used no BAS, 12.0% used BIV alone, 20.8% used TRI alone, 26.8% used VCD alone, 5.4% used TRI+BIV, and 25.6% used VCD+BIV. The crude bleeding rate was 4.4% overall. Only 2 comparisons showed significant trends across all risk strata: VCD+BIV versus no BAS, odds ratio (95% CI) range: first quartile, 0.36 (0.18-0.72) to top 2.5th percentile, 0.50 (0.32-0.78); TRI versus no BAS, odds ratio (95% CI) range: first quartile, 0.15 (0.06-0.38) to top 2.5th percentile, 0.49 (0.28-0.86). TRI had lower odds of bleeding compared with BIV for all risk strata except the top 2.5th percentile. Addition of BIV to TRI did not change the odds of bleeding for any risk strata. Factors potentially limiting use of TRI (renal failure, shock, cardiac arrest, and mechanical circulatory support) were present in ≤10% of procedures below the 90th percentile. CONCLUSIONS:Among individual BAS, only TRI had consistently lower odds of bleeding across all risk strata. Factors potentially limiting TRI were found infrequently in procedures below the 90th percentile of bleeding risk. For transfemoral PCI, VCD+BIV had lower odds of bleeding compared with no BAS across all risk strata.

BACKGROUND:For low-risk patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) the recommended optimal discharge timing is inconsistent in guidelines. The European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend early discharge within 48-72 h, while the American College of Cardiology guidelines do not recommend a specific discharge strategy. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we compared outcomes with early discharge (≤3 days) versus late discharge (>3 days). METHODS:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were selected after searching MEDLINE and EMBASE database. Meta-analysis was stratified according to study design. Outcomes were reported as random effects risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS:Seven RCTs comprising 1780 patients and 4 observational studies comprising 39,288 patients were selected. The RCT-restricted analysis did not demonstrate significant differences in terms of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97 [0.23-4.05]) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR, 0.84 [0.56-1.26]). Conversely, observational study restricted analysis showed that early vs late discharge strategy was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.40 [0.23-0.71]) and MACE (RR, 0.45 [0.26-0.78]). There were no significant differences in hospital readmissions between early vs late discharge in both RCT or observational study analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Early discharge strategy in appropriately selected low-risk patients with STEMI undergoing PCI is safe and it has the potential to improve cost of care.

Importance:Quality of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly assessed by risk-adjusted mortality. However, this metric may result in procedural risk aversion, especially for high-risk patients. Objective:To determine correlation and reclassification between hospital-level disease-specific mortality and PCI procedural mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Design, Setting, and Participants:This hospital-level observational cross-sectional multicenter analysis included hospitals participating in the Chest Pain-MI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of type I non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and hospitals in the CathPCI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients treated with PCI with an indication of NSTEMI or STEMI, between April 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Exposures:Inclusion into the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI and CathPCI registries. Main Outcomes and Measures:For each hospital in each registry, a disease-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-D) for AMI was calculated, which represents a risk-adjusted observed to expected rate of mortality for AMI as a disease using the Chest Pain-MI Registry, and a procedure-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-P) for PCI was calculated using the CathPCI Registry. Results:A subset of 625 sites participated in both registries, with a final count of 776 890 patients from the Chest Pain-MI Registry (509 576 men [65.6%]; 620 981 white [80.0%]; and median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 55-74 years]) and 853 386 patients from the CathPCI Registry (582 701 men [68.3%]; 691 236 white [81.0%]; and median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 54-73 years]). Among the 625 linked hospitals, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between EMR-D and EMR-P produced a ρ of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.47-0.58), suggesting moderate correlation. Among the highest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 90 of 208 sites (43.3%) were classified into a lower category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Among the lowest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 92 of 208 sites (44.2%) were classified into a higher category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Bland-Altman plots for the overall linked cohort demonstrate a mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D of 0.49% (95% CI, -1.61% to 2.58%; P < .001), with procedural mortality higher than disease-based mortality. However, among patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest, the mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D was -0.64% (95% CI, -4.41% to 3.12%; P < .001), with procedural mortality lower than disease-based mortality. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that, for hospitals treating patients with AMI, there is only a moderate correlation between procedural outcomes and disease-based outcomes. Nearly half of hospitals in the highest tertile of performance for PCI performance were reclassified into a lower performance tertile when judged by disease-based metrics. Higher rates of mortality were observed when using disease-based metrics compared with procedural metrics when assessing patients with cardiogenic shock and/or cardiac arrest, signifying what appears to be potential risk avoidance among this highest-risk subset of patients.

BACKGROUND:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results about the impact of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS:We performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA) of RCTs comparing TRA and TFA in patients with STEMI. The outcomes of interest were 30-day mortality, major bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and access site complications. RESULTS:A total of 17 studies with 11,992 patients were included in the current TSA. The TRA group had lower 30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% CI 0.58-0.90, P = .003), major bleeding (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.79, P = .0001), MACE (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.93, P = .01), and access site complications (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28-0.48, P < .00001). There was no difference in MI and stroke between the 2groups. Applying TSA boundaries, the z-curve for 30-day mortality, major bleeding, MACE and access site complications crossed the conventional and the TSA boundaries, indicating firm evidence for better outcomes in the TRA group. For MI and stroke, the z-curve failed to cross the conventional and the TSA boundaries for both outcomes, indicating lack of signals of benefit or harm. CONCLUSIONS:In the current TSA, the available data from RCTs support improved 30-day mortality, major bleeding, MACE and access site complication rates in STEMI patients treated by PCI through the radial access.

OBJECTIVES:We hypothesized that splanchnic nerve blockade (SNB) would attenuate increased exercise-induced cardiac filling pressures in patients with chronic HF. BACKGROUND:Chronic heart failure (HF) is characterized by limited exercise capacity driven in part by an excessive elevation of cardiac filling pressures. METHODS:This is a prospective, open-label, single-arm interventional study in chronic HF patients. Eligible patients had a wedge pressure ≥15 mm Hg at rest or ≥25 mm Hg with exercise on baseline right heart catheterization. Patients underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing with invasive hemodynamic assessment, followed by percutaneous SNB with ropivacaine. RESULTS:(9.1 ± 2.5 vs. 9.8 ± 2.7 ml/kg/min; p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS:SNB reduced resting and exercise-induced pulmonary arterial and wedge pressure with favorable effects on cardiac output and exercise capacity. Continued efforts to investigate short- and long-term effects of SNB in chronic HF are warranted. Clinical Trials Registration (Abdominal Nerve Blockade in Chronic Heart Failure; NCT03453151).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:This review examines trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in order to inform clinical decision-making regarding the role of PCI in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). RECENT FINDINGS:Several large, randomized, controlled trials published in recent years suggest that OMT should be the initial treatment strategy for symptomatic SIHD, but there is a role for PCI in patients who continue to be symptomatic despite OMT. Additionally, using fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) techniques may help to identify physiologically significant lesions and may be useful in maximizing the benefit from PCI in SIHD. Recent trials demonstrate PCI for the treatment of symptomatic SIHD does not reduce mortality compared with OMT but effectively relieves anginal symptoms. However, OMT continues to be the first-line therapy for SIHD but is significantly underutilized.

The society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) think tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2020 think tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease (CHD). Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's emerging leader mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialogue from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI and the industry community in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.