Garberich, Ross

AbstractBackgroundAmong acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock (AMICS), a number of key variables predict mortality, including cardiac arrest (CA) and shock classification as proposed by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI). Given this prognostic importance, we examined the frequency of reporting of high risk variables in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AMICS patients.MethodsWe identified 15 RCTs enrolling 2,500 AMICS patients and then reviewed rates of CA, baseline neurologic status, right heart catheterization data, lactate levels, inotrope and vasopressor requirement, hypothermia, mechanical ventilation, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), mechanical circulatory support, and specific cause of death based on the primary manuscript and Data in S1.ResultsA total of 2,500 AMICS patients have been enrolled in 15 clinical trials over 21 years with only four trials enrolling >80 patients. The reporting frequency and range for key prognostic factors was: neurologic status (0% reported), hypothermia (28% reported, prevalence 33–75%), specific cause of death (33% reported), cardiac index and wedge pressure (47% reported, range 1.6–2.3 L min−1 m−2 and 15–24 mmHg), lactate (60% reported, range 4–7.7 mmol/L), LVEF (73% reported, range 25–45%), CA (80% reported, prevalence 0–92%), MCS (80% reported, prevalence 13–100%), and mechanical ventilation (93% reported, prevalence 35–100%). This variability was reflected in the 30‐day mortality which ranged from 20–73%.ConclusionsIn a comprehensive review of seminal RCTs in AMICS, important predictors of outcome were frequently not reported. Future efforts to standardize CS trial data collection and reporting may allow for better assessment of novel therapies for AMICS.

AbstractObjectivesWe examined the contemporary incidence, types, predictors, angiographic characteristics, management and outcomes of coronary perforation.BackgroundCoronary perforation is a rare, but important, complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is lack of data on perforations stratified as large and distal vessel perforations.MethodsRetrospective, observational cohort study of all patients who underwent PCI at a high volume, tertiary hospital between the years 2009 and 2016. Angiograms of all coronary perforation cases were reviewed to determine the mechanism, type, and management of perforation. Risk‐adjusted periprocedural complication rates were compared between patients with and without coronary perforation. One‐year mortality outcomes of patients with large vessel vs. distal vessel perforation were also examined.ResultsCoronary perforation occurred in 68 of 13,339 PCIs (0.51%) performed during the study period: 51 (75%) were large vessel perforations and 17 (25%) distal vessel perforations. Most (67%) large vessel perforations were due to balloon/stent inflation, whereas most (94%) distal vessel perforations were due to guidewire exit. Patients with coronary perforations had significantly higher risk for periprocedural complications (adjusted odds ratio 7.57; 95% CI: 4.22–13.50; P < 0.001). Only one patient with large vessel perforation required emergency cardiac surgery, yet in‐hospital mortality was high with both large vessel (7.8%) and distal vessel (11.8%) perforations.ConclusionsCoronary perforation is an infrequent, but potentially severe PCI complication. Most coronary perforations are large vessel perforations. Although coronary perforations rarely lead to emergency cardiac surgery, both distal vessel and large vessel perforations are associated with high in‐hospital mortality, highlighting the importance of prevention.

AbstractObjectivesThis study sought to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) performed by sleep deprived and non‐sleep deprived operators.BackgroundInterventional cardiologists are at risk for sleep deprivation as they often have to perform emergent procedures at night, but the effects of sleep deprivation on clinical outcomes have received limited study.MethodsWe examined the frequency, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of daytime PCIs performed by sleep deprived and non‐sleep deprived operators at a tertiary medical center. Operators were considered sleep deprived when performing a daytime (7 am–11:59 pm) procedure preceded by a nighttime (12 am–6:59 am) procedure on the same date.ResultsOf the 12,680 daytime PCIs performed from 6/29/09 to 12/30/2016, 367 (2.9%) were performed by sleep deprived operators. Patients undergoing PCI performed by a sleep deprived operator were more likely to be younger, white, and to present with ST‐elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). The incidence of in‐hospital death (1.1% vs. 1.3%, P = 1.0) and bleeding within 72 hr (3.9% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.29) were similar for procedures performed by sleep‐deprived and non‐sleep deprived operators. When the sleep deprived group was further stratified based on degree of sleep deprivation or length of sleep interruption, differences in mortality and total bleeding remained non‐significant.ConclusionsIn this large single center study, operator sleep deprivation did not appear to adversely impact PCI outcomes.