Elgendy, Islam Y

Abstract Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold standard, guideline-recommended revascularization strategy in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are limited data on its use and effectiveness among patients with active cancer presenting with STEMI. Methods and results All STEMI hospitalizations between 2004 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analysed, stratified by cancer type. Propensity score matching was performed to estimate the average treatment effect of pPCI in each cancer on in-hospital adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its individual components, and compare treatment effect between cancer and non-cancer patients. Out of 1 870 815 patients with STEMI, 38 932 (2.1%) had a current cancer diagnosis [haematological: 11 251 (28.9% of all cancers); breast: 4675 (12.0%); lung: 9538 (24.5%); colon: 3749 (9.6%); prostate: 9719 (25.0%)]. Patients with cancer received pPCI less commonly than those without cancer (from 54.2% for lung cancer to 70.6% for haematological vs. 82.3% in no cancer). Performance of pPCI was strongly associated with lower adjusted probabilities of MACCE and all-cause mortality in the cancer groups compared with the no cancer group. There was no significant difference in estimated average pPCI treatment effect between the cancer groups and non-cancer group. Conclusion Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is underutilized in STEMI patients with current cancer despite its significantly lower associated rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality and MACCE that is comparable to patients without cancer. Further work is required to assess the long-term benefit and safety of pPCI in this high-risk group.

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with an increased acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk. Data are limited regarding the epidemiology and outcomes of ACS in patients with IBD. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis of patients with IBD admitted for ACS in the U.S. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample for 2005 to 2015 was conducted. We analyzed trends in IBD-ACS admissions and mortality, differences in risk profiles, management strategies, and in-hospital mortality between IBD-ACS and non-IBD ACS and between ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn disease (CD). Results We studied 6,872,415 non-IBD ACS and 24,220 IBD-ACS hospitalizations (53% with CD). During the study period, the number of hospitalizations for IBD-ACS increased, particularly those related to CD. Compared with non-IBD ACS, patients with IBD-ACS had a lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and similar rates of coronary angiography and revascularization. The in-hospital mortality rate was lower with IBD-ACS (3.9%) compared with non-IBD ACS (5.3%; odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.96; P = 0.011) and was stable between 2005 and 2015. Risk factors, ACS management strategies, and mortality were similar between CD and UC. Coagulopathy, weight loss, and gastrointestinal bleeding were more frequent in IBD-ACS and were strong independent predictors of mortality. Conclusions Hospitalizations for ACS in patients with IBD increased in recent years but death rates were stable. The ACS-related risk profiles and mortality were modestly favorable with IBD-ACS than with non-IBD ACS and were similar between CD and UC. Complications more frequently associated with IBD were strongly associated with mortality. These findings indicate that aggressive management of IBD and ACS comorbidities is required to improve outcomes.

AbstractObjectiveThe authors aimed to investigate the benefits and risks of catheter‐directed thrombolysis (CDT) in acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT).BackgroundThe role of CDT in the management of DVT is evolving. Data on CDT versus anticoagulation alone in acute DVT is sparse.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies that compared CDT to anticoagulation alone in patients with acute DVT.ResultsWe included 11 studies (four randomized control trials [RCTs] and seven observational studies) with a total of 8,737 patients. During hospital stay, patients who received CDT had higher odds of major bleeding (2.5% vs. 1.6%; OR 1.46, 95% CI [1.07, 1.98], p = .02), blood transfusion (10.8% vs. 6.2%; OR 1.8, 95% CI [1.52, 2.13], p < .001), and thromboembolism (15.5% vs. 10%; OR 1.67, 95% CI [1.47, 1.91], p < .001) compared with anticoagulation alone. At 6‐month follow‐up, patients who received CDT had higher venous patency (71.1% vs. 37.7%; OR 5.49, 95% CI [2.63, 11.5], p < .001) and lower postthrombotic syndrome (PTS; 27% vs. 40.7%; OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.22, 0.86], p = .02). During a mean follow‐up duration of 30.5 ± 28 months, CDT group continued to have higher venous patency (79.6% vs. 71.8%; OR 3.79, 95% CI [1.54, 9.32], p = .004) and lower PTS (44.7% vs. 50.5%; OR 0.43, 95% CI [0.23, 0.78], p = .006), but no difference in thromboembolism.ConclusionCompared with anticoagulation alone, CDT for patients with acute DVT was associated with a higher risk of complications, but a higher rate of venous patency and lower risk of postthrombotic syndrome at 2.5 years follow‐up.