Krittanawong, Chayakrit

Abstract Myocardial bridging is the most common congenital coronary anomaly, characterized by an intramyocardial course of a segment of an epicardial coronary artery, with considerable variability in its depth and length. In most cases, MB is a benign anatomical variant without clinical significance, often asymptomatic and not requiring treatment. However, with the increasing use of coronary computed tomography angiography for coronary assessment, myocardial bridging is now more frequently identified during non-invasive imaging. It can also be diagnosed via invasive coronary angiography, where it appears as a dynamic systolic compression of the tunnelled artery segment, and further anatomical characterization can be enhanced by intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography. Growing recognition of myocardial bridging’s role in ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary arteries has heightened clinical interest in its prevalence, diagnostic strategies, and management approaches. As such, this narrative review provides clinicians with an updated, evidence-based guide to the diagnosis and therapeutic management of myocardial bridging, while also addressing ongoing controversies and areas of uncertainty.

ABSTRACT Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a high morbidity and mortality condition worldwide frequently complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and decompensated heart failure (HF). Within the management of CS, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices play a critical role in maintaining hemodynamic stability, preserving end‐organ perfusion and bridging patients through to recovery, implantation of durable support or transplantation. Despite their use, optimal timing of initiation, as well as patient and device selection remain unclear. This review explores the current landscape of MCS devices, surrounding evidence and key distinctions between devices. With increasing acknowledgment for the heterogeneity of CS, understanding the strengths and limitations of each device remains crucial to improving outcomes in this high‐risk population.

Non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) can be managed by ischemia guide strategies or early invasive strategies. Here, we present the findings of an updated contemporary analysis regarding the use of intracoronary imaging (ICI)-guided PCI versus angiography-guided PCI and in-hospital mortality in patients with NSTEMI in the United States using the NIS database from 2016 to 2021. ICI use increased by nearly threefold between 2016 and 2021, without a significant difference in in-hospital mortality, though interestingly, mortality rates compared with angiography guidance were similar and relatively low. In this study, the use of ICI was associated with lower adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest, but with a longer length of stay and cost of hospitalization.

ABSTRACT Background Although Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is the cornerstone treatment acute myocardial infarction (AMI), its use in the elderly, specifically nonagenarians patients, is not well studied. This study sought to compare the outcomes and complications of nonagenarian patients who experienced AMI between those who underwent PCI and those who underwent medical treatment only. Methods We evaluated 301,440 nonagenarian (ages 90−99) patients who presented to the hospital with AMI who were listed in the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2021. AMI was defined according to the ICD‐10 Diagnostic Codes. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association of PCI with primary outcomes of mortality and secondary outcomes. The temporal trend of both the incidence of PCI in nonagenarian patients as well as the mortality rate between 2016 and 2021 were expressed as percentages over time. Results Of the total ( n = 301,440) nonagenarian patients with AMI, 33,035 patients underwent PCI while 268,406 did not undergo PCI and rather, just utilized optimized medical therapy (OMT). Of these, 3290 (9.96%) died in the PCI group, and 43580 (16.24%) died in the OMT group. All of the secondary outcomes were significantly different between the PCI and OMT groups. Comparing the two groups, the PCI group was associated with decreased mortality (OR 0.63 [95% CI, 0.58−0.69]; p < 0.001), acute heart failure (OR 0.88 [95% CI, 0.82−0.95] p < 0.001), and AKI (OR 0.75 [95% CI, 0.70−0.79]; p < 0.001), and increased cardiogenic shock (OR 3.06 [95% CI, 2.77−3.38]. The temporal of PCI in nonagenarian patients showed an increase in frequency from about 8.3 in 2016 to about 13.7% in 2021. Furthermore, comparing the mortality between the PCI and OMT groups showed a significant difference with a decreased mortality in the PCI group. Conclusions Nonagenarian patients experiencing AMI who underwent PCI is associated with a significant mortality decrease compared to those who underwent OMT only. The PCI group was also associated with a significant decrease in multiple secondary complications including acute heart failure, AKI, acute stroke, and an increase in cardiogenic shock. Temporally, we have seen an increase in PCI being used in nonagenarian patients over the interval.

Myocardial Bridging (MB) is typically a benign congenital coronary anomaly. MB can infrequently result in complications such as myocardial ischemia, arrhythmias, and sudden cardiac death. Recent studies suggest an underlying genetic component for MB involving DES, FBN1, SCN2B, or NOTCH1. The role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in managing MB, compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT), remains uncertain. Our study used the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database to identify patients aged 18 or older with myocardial bridging who were managed with PCI versus medical therapy. We compared the outcomes between both groups including in-hospital mortality, the trend of management of MB and other in-hospital outcomes or complications. Our results showed no statistically significant difference between both subgroups when comparing in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes of cardiac arrest and the development of an acute kidney injury (AKI). Patients with myocardial bridging treated with PCI had a higher risk of developing cardiogenic shock, requiring LVAD, and requiring the use of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) compared to the medical therapy subgroup. Our study suggests the decision to perform PCI in myocardial bridging patients should be individualized such as in patients with refractory symptoms despite medical therapy or those with known high-risk features.

ABSTRACTBackgroundMyeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are associated with an increased cardiovascular risk including acute coronary syndrome. However, there is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the rate of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as the in‐hospital characteristics and outcomes for MPN patients.AimsWe aimed to evaluate the temporal trends and outcomes of PCI among patients with MPN.Methods and ResultsThe National Inpatient Sample database from 2016 to 2020 was queried to identify all PCI hospitalizations. Temporal trends and outcomes of patients with and without MPN following PCI were analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was implemented to compare outcomes between MPN and non‐MPN groups. 2,237,210 PCI hospitalizations with 7560 (0.27%) patients with MPN were included in this study. Throughout the study period, the prevalence of MPN among PCI admissions remained stable (p‐value for trend = 0.12). Within the MPN subgroup, essential thrombocythemia (ET) was the predominant condition (53.2). Patients with MPN had higher prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities than non‐MPN patients. Following PSM, MPNs were significantly associated with a higher risk of blood transfusions (OR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.22−2.24, p = 0.001) and AKI (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.17−1.65, p < 0.001). In contrast, the risk of in‐hospital mortality (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.83−1.69, p = 0.354 and bleeding (OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 0.90−2.27, p = 0.127) did not significantly differ between the two groups.ConclusionsOur study demonstrated that while the prevalence of MPN among patients undergoing PCI remained stable, those with MPN faced higher risks of bleeding, blood transfusion and acute kidney injury. Further research is warranted to explore the underlying reasons for these increased risks and to improve outcomes in this high‐risk group.

Introduction: Data on outcomes between unfractionated heparin and bivalirudin anticoagulation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndromes remain inconclusive. We aimed to systematically analyze PCI outcomes by comparing unfractionated heparin and bivalirudin. Methods: We systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception in 1966 through January 2024 for studies evaluating PCI outcomes comparing unfractionated heparin and bivalirudin. Two investigators independently reviewed the data. Conflicts were resolved through consensus. Random-effects meta-analyses were used. Results: A total of 10 prospective trials were identified that enrolled 42,253 individuals who presented with an acute coronary syndrome. Our analysis found that heparin when compared to bivalirudin was associated with an increased risk of trial-based definition of major bleeding [relative risk (RR): 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29–2.20], nonaccess site complications (RR: 4.6, 95% CI: 1.75–12.09), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.20–2.41), major bleeding risks (RR: 1.87, 95% CI: 1.49–2.36), cardiovascular disease death (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.02–1.57), and thrombocytopenia (RR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.07–2.62). There were no statistically significant differences between heparin and bivalirudin for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular event, stroke, reinfarction, target vessel revascularization, and acute or stent thrombosis. Conclusions: The present meta-analysis demonstrates bivalirudin reduces major bleeding when used for anticoagulation during PCI in patients with acute coronary syndromes and is not associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis or major adverse cardiovascular event.