AIMS\nThere have been no large observational studies attempting to identify predictors of major bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), particularly from a multinational perspective. The objective of our study was thus to develop a prediction rule for the identification of patients with ACS at higher risk of major bleeding.\n\n\nMETHODS AND RESULTS\nData from 24045 patients from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) were analysed. Factors associated with major bleeding were identified using logistic regression analysis. Predictive models were developed for the overall patient population and for subgroups of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina. The overall incidence of major bleeding was 3.9% (4.8% in patients with STEMI, 4.7% in patients with NSTEMI and 2.3% in patients with unstable angina). Advanced age, female sex, history of bleeding, and renal insufficiency were independently associated with a higher risk of bleeding (P<0.01). The association remained after adjustment for hospital therapies and performance of invasive procedures. After adjustment for a variety of potential confounders, major bleeding was significantly associated with an increased risk of hospital death (adjusted odds ratio 1.64, 95% confidence interval 1.18, 2.28).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nIn routine clinical practice, major bleeding is a relatively frequent non-cardiac complication of contemporary therapy for ACS and it is associated with a poor hospital prognosis. Simple baseline demographic and clinical characteristics identify patients at increased risk of major bleeding.

General Cardiology AbstractsPredictors of major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes: the global registry of acute coronary events (GRACE)

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary artery disease (CAD) contributes to half of mortalities caused by CVD. The mainstay of management of CAD is medical therapy and revascularisation. Revascularisation can be achieved via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Peripheral arteries, such as the femoral or radial artery, provide the access to the coronary arteries to perform diagnostic or therapeutic (or both) procedures. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of the transradial compared to the transfemoral approach in people with CAD undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) or PCI (or both). Search methods We searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials on 10 October 2017: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science Core Collection. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in August 2017. There were no language restrictions. Reference lists were also checked and we contacted authors of included studies for further information. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials that compared transradial and transfemoral approaches in adults (18 years of age or older) undergoing diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) for CAD. Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. At least two authors independently screened trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted trial authors for missing information. We used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All analyses were checked by another author. Main results We identified 31 studies (44 reports) including 27,071 participants and two ongoing studies. The risk of bias in the studies was low or unclear for several domains. Compared to the transfemoral approach, the transradial approach reduced short-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) (i.e. assessed during hospitalisation and up to 30 days of follow-up) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.94; 17,133 participants; 4 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiac death (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 11,170 participants; 11 studies; moderate quality evidence). However, short-term myocardial infarction was similar between both groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02; 19,430 participants; 11 studies; high quality evidence). The transradial approach had a lower procedural success rate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.98; 25,920 participants; 28 studies; moderate quality evidence), but was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; 18,955 participants; 10 studies; high quality evidence), bleeding (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.74; 23,043 participants; 20 studies; low quality evidence), and access site complications (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59; 16,112 participants; 24 studies; low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions Transradial approach for diagnostic CA or PCI (or both) in CAD may reduce short-term NACE, cardiac death, all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications. There is insufficient evidence regarding the long-term clinical outcomes (i.e. beyond 30 days of follow-up).

/pdf/transradial-versus-transfemoral-approach-for-diagnostic-56ogcyaux9.pdf

Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease.

Aims: The relationship between operator volume and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been studied in the past, but recent analyses of national data covering the modern radial, acute coronary syndrome-dominant era are limited. Changing in case-mix, practice, and service provision mean that previously described volume–outcome relationships may no longer be relevant, and a reassessment in contemporary practice is needed. We aim to assess whether operator volume is associated with independently reported 30-day mortality in a contemporary PCI cohort.



Methods and results:This observational cohort study analysed procedures recorded in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society PCI database from 2013 to 2014 in England and Wales. Mixed effects multiple logistic regression modelling was used to account for operator and centre level effects and to adjust for potential confounders. Volume is defined as the total number of procedures the operator was responsible for in the previous 12 months. A total of 133 970 procedures were analysed. Median volume across all procedures was 178 per year (interquartile range 128–239). The 30-day mortality rate was 2.6%. After adjustment for case-mix, the association between volume and mortality was negligible (odds ratio per 100 procedures 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.93–1.05; P = 0.725). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results amongst high-risk PCI subsets and in-hospital outcomes.



Conclusion: There is no evidence that mortality differs by operator volume in the UK. Volume–outcome relationships in PCI should be carefully monitored in response to future changes in practice.

/pdf/operator-volume-is-not-associated-with-mortality-following-4s789f7a9y.pdf

Operator volume is not associated with mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society registry.

Distal radial artery (Snuffbox) access for intracranial aneurysm treatment using the Woven EndoBridge (WEB) device

Stroke prevention is the main priority in the management cascade of atrial fibrillation. Most patients require long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) and may require percutaneous coronary intervention. Prevention of recurrent cardiac ischemia and stent thrombosis necessitate dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for up to 12 months. Triple antithrombotic therapy with OAC plus DAPT of shortest feasible duration is warranted, followed by dual antithrombotic therapy of OAC and antiplatelet agent, and OAC alone after 12 months. Because of elevated risk of hemorrhagic complications, new-generation drug-eluting stents, lower-intensity OAC, radial access, and routine use of gastric protection with proton pump inhibitors are recommended.

Antiplatelet and Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Coronary Stenting

OBJECTIVES Radial artery access (RA) for left heart catheterization and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. Despite consistent data showing less bleeding complications compared with femoral artery access (FA), it continues to be underused in the United States, particularly in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in whom aggressive anticoagulation and platelet inhibition regimens are needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare major cardiovascular outcomes and safety endpoints in patients with ACS managed with PCI using radial versus femoral access. METHODS Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing RA versus FA in patients with ACS were analyzed. Our primary outcomes were mortality, major adverse cardiac event, major bleeding, and access-related complications. A fixed-effects model was used for the primary analyses. RESULTS Fifteen randomized controlled trials and 17 cohort studies involving 44,854 patients with ACS were identified. Compared with FA, RA was associated with a reduction in major bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.61, P < 0.001), access-related complications (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.39, P < 0.001), mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54-0.75, P < 0.001), and major adverse cardiac event (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57-0.85, P < 0.001). These significant reductions were consistent across different study designs and clinical presentations. CONCLUSIONS Based on this large meta-analysis, RA for primary PCI in the setting of ACS is associated with reduction in cardiac and safety endpoints when compared with FA in both urgent and elective procedures. This should encourage a wider adoption of this technique among centers and interventional cardiologists.

/pdf/systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-major-cardiovascular-11yi363xj9.pdf

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Major Cardiovascular Outcomes for Radial Versus Femoral Access in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Trauma induced myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE We sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature comparing fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements after administration of adenosine using intracoronary (IC) bolus versus standard continuous intravenous (IV) infusion. BACKGROUND FFR is considered the gold standard for invasive assessment of coronary lesions of intermediate severity. IV adenosine is recommended to induce hyperemia; however, IC adenosine is widely used for convenience. The difference between IV and IC administration in lesions assessment is not well studied. METHODS We systematically searched MEDLINE and relevant databases for studies comparing IV with IC adenosine administration for FFR measurement. We reviewed data pertaining to adenosine doses, side effects, and FFR values. RESULTS Eight studies addressing the primary question were identified. Dose of IC adenosine varied between 36 and 600 μg. Compared to IV adenosine infusion, the sensitivity of IC administration is 0.805 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.664-0.896; p < .001), specificity is 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932-0.983; p < .001), positive likelihood ratio is 24.218 (95% CI: 12,263-47.830; p < .001), negative likelihood ratio is 0.117 (95% CI: 0.033-0.411; p < .01), and diagnostic odds ratio is 274.225 [95% CI: 92.731-810.946; p < .001]. Overall, hemodynamic side effects and symptoms were reported more frequently with IV adenosine. CONCLUSIONS The available literature suggests that IC adenosine is well tolerated and may provide equivalent diagnostic accuracy compared to IV administration. However, variability in dosing regimens does not allow definitive conclusions regarding noninferiority of IC approach compared to IV administration.

Comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Hypothesis: The initial assessment of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) reflects cardiac damage and is an important prognostic factor in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). N-Terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is released following cardiomyocytes injury. However, the relationship between NT-proBNP levels, myocardial damage and clinical outcomes after STEMI has not been well defined.
Methods: Plasma levels of NT-proBNP, troponin I and creatinine kinase (CK) were assessed in 75 patients with STEMI. Echocardiography and CMR were performed prior to hospital discharge. Cardiac damage was quantified using peak biomarker levels and LGE. Patients were followed for a median of 975 days (IQR 823-1098 days) for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infraction, unplanned recurrent revascularization and recurrent hospitalization for heart failure).
Results: Plasma levels of NT-proBNP increased following STEMI to peak at 24 hours. The dynamic changes in plasma NT-proBNP were similar to those noted with troponin I and its delayed peak but not those observed with plasma CK levels. Peak NT-proBNP levels correlated positively with indices of myocardial damage such as peak troponin I (R2=0.38, P <0.001), peak CK (R2=0.22, P = 0.01) and LGE examination (R2 = 0.46, P <0.001). Peak plasma level of NT- proBNP was strongly predictive of MACE during the follow-up period.
Conclusions: Peak levels of NT-proBNP following STEMI are predictive of the extent of myocardial damage and clinical outcomes. These results suggest an important prognostic role for NT-proBNP assessment in STEMI patients.

/pdf/nt-probnp-level-predicts-extent-of-myonecrosis-and-clinical-1bw8qjrgek.pdf

NT-proBNP Level Predicts Extent of Myonecrosis and Clinical Adverse Outcomes in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pilot Study.

Renal dysfunction in the setting of heart failure is a common medical problem. This dysfunction can range from reversible ischemic changes to renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy. Patients who are candidates for mechanical circulatory support with left ventricular assistant device (LVAD) pose unique challenge with respect to receiving dialysis. We present a 47 year old patient who required renal replacement therapy peri-implantation of LVAD for management of acute on chronic kidney disease, and was discharged for chronic hemodialysis in an outpatient setting. In this report we highlight the challenges of managing volume overload in patients with impaired renal function refractory to optimal medical therapy as well as the possibility of implanting LVADs in patients on hemodialysis.

/pdf/chronic-hemodialysis-in-a-patient-with-left-ventricular-3dkavo9yyj.pdf

Georges Lolay

Papers

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Major Cardiovascular Outcomes for Radial Versus Femoral Access in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Trauma induced myocardial infarction

Comparison of intracoronary versus intravenous adenosine-induced maximal hyperemia for fractional flow reserve measurement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

NT-proBNP Level Predicts Extent of Myonecrosis and Clinical Adverse Outcomes in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Pilot Study.

Chronic Hemodialysis in a Patient with Left Ventricular Assist Device.