Kern, Morton J.

This article provides a brief summary of the relevant recommendations and references related to percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. The goal was to provide the clinician with concise, evidence‐based contemporary recommendations, and the supporting documentation to encourage their application. The full text includes disclosure of all relevant relationships with industry for each writing committee member. A fundamental aspect of all expert consensus statements is that these carefully developed, evidence‐based documents can neither encompass all clinical circumstances, nor replace the judgment of individual physicians in management of each patient. The science of medicine is rooted in evidence, and the art of medicine is based on the application of this evidence to the individual patient. This expert consensus statement has adhered to these principles for optimal management of patients requiring percutaneous mechanical circulatory support. © 2015 by The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, The American College of Cardiology Foundation, the Heart Failure Society of America, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Although historically the intra‐aortic balloon pump has been the only mechanical circulatory support device available to clinicians, a number of new devices have become commercially available and have entered clinical practice. These include axial flow pumps, such as Impella®; left atrial to femoral artery bypass pumps, specifically the TandemHeart; and new devices for institution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. These devices differ significantly in their hemodynamic effects, insertion, monitoring, and clinical applicability. This document reviews the physiologic impact on the circulation of these devices and their use in specific clinical situations. These situations include patients undergoing high‐risk percutaneous coronary intervention, those presenting with cardiogenic shock, and acute decompensated heart failure. Specialized uses for right‐sided support and in pediatric populations are discussed and the clinical utility of mechanical circulatory support devices is reviewed, as are the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association clinical practice guidelines. © 2015 by The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, The American College of Cardiology Foundation, The Heart Failure Society of America, and The Society for Thoracic Surgery.

Bridging for antiplatelet therapy remains a subject of debate with data favoring GP blockers but at a risk of bleeding. This Conversation in Cardiology addresses a key and often asked question about use of alternatives to P2Y12 agents in patients requiring surgery within 6 months after drug eluting stent implantation. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background —The impact of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on long-term mortality rates in the presence of various demographic, clinical, and angiographic factors is uncertain in the population of patients suitable for both procedures. Methods and Results —In the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) randomized trial and registry, 3610 patients who were eligible to receive PTCA and CABG were revascularized between 1989 and 1992. Multivariate Cox models were used to identify factors associated with 5-year mortality and cardiac mortality, with particular attention to factors that interact with treatment. Diabetic patients receiving insulin had higher mortality and cardiac mortality rates with PTCA compared with CABG (relative risk [RR] 1.78 and 2.63, respectively, P <0.001), and patients with ST elevation had higher cardiac mortality rates with CABG than with PTCA (RR 4.08, P <0.001). Factors most strongly associated with high overall mortality rates were insulin-treated diabetes, congestive heart failure, kidney failure, and older age. Black race was also associated with higher mortality rates (RR 1.49, P =0.019). Conclusions —A set of variables was identified that could be used to help select a revascularization procedure and to evaluate risk of long-term mortality in the population of patients considering revascularization.

Background There are few data comparing clinical outcome and potential indications for routine post–myocardial infarction cardiac catheterization and revascularization of patients who sustain a non–Q-wave versus Q-wave infarct after thrombolytic therapy. Methods and Results A secondary analysis of 2634 patients enrolled in the TIMI II trial with a first myocardial infarction was performed to determine 6-week and 1-year cardiac event rates and identify clinical and angiographic differences between the 1867 patients (70.9%) who evolved a Q-wave infarct and the 767 patients (29.1%) who sustained a non–Q-wave infarct after treatment with intravenous thrombolytic therapy. Male sex (85.3% versus 75.6%; P <.001) and anterior wall infarcts (53.8% versus 43.7%; P <.001) were more frequent in the Q-wave versus the non–Q-wave group. During recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rTPA) infusion, a greater percentage of non–Q-wave patients (37.3% versus 23.5%; P =.001) had normalization of initial ST-segment elevation. Infarct-related artery patency (TIMI flow grade 2 or 3) ( P =.02), complete infarct-related artery reperfusion (TIMI 3 flow grade) ( P <.001), and the percentage of patients with a predischarge resting left ventricular ejection fraction >55% ( P <.001) were greater in the non–Q-wave group. New congestive heart failure during hospitalization developed more frequently in Q-wave patients (18.9% versus 11.6%; P <.001). After 42 days, the occurrences of reinfarction ( P =.76), death ( P =.76), and combined death or reinfarction ( P =.43) were similar in patients assigned to the invasive or conservative postlytic management strategy, regardless of infarct type. One-year mortality was 3.4% versus 4.4% for non–Q-wave versus Q-wave infarct type, respectively ( P =.25). Conclusions Angiographic and clinical differences were observed between patients who present with initial ST-segment elevation and evolve early non–Q-wave versus Q-wave myocardial infarcts after treatment with rTPA, heparin, and aspirin. Early mortality and adverse clinical cardiac events in these patients are not significantly different after a conservative compared with an invasive treatment strategy, regardless of whether the infarct type is non–Q wave or Q wave.