Gladden, James D.

Safe and efficient arterial access is critical for optimal patient outcomes and procedural success in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Because of the lower risk for vascular and bleeding complications, as well as patient comfort, transradial access has become the predominant approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Transfemoral access, however, is still required for selected complex percutaneous coronary interventions, mechanical circulatory support, and structural heart procedures. The use of adjunctive technology and techniques such as ultrasound guidance and micropuncture can be combined with fluoroscopy and palpation to improve outcomes associated with vascular access. The importance of optimal access techniques has augmented due to increasing volume of structural heart and mechanical circulatory support procedures requiring large bore sheaths. In this document we review the contemporary techniques for femoral and radial access in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Background: Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices provide hemodynamic assistance for shock refractory to pharmacological treatment. Most registries have focused on single devices or specific etiologies of shock, limiting data regarding overall practice patterns with temporary MCS in cardiac intensive care units. Methods: The CCCTN (Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network) is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in North America. Between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snapshot of consecutive medical CICU admissions. Results: Of the 270 admissions using temporary MCS, 33% had acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), 31% had CS not related to acute myocardial infarction, 11% had mixed shock, and 22% had an indication other than shock. Among all 585 admissions with CS or mixed shock, 34% used temporary MCS during the CICU stay with substantial variation between centers (range: 17%–50%). The most common temporary MCS devices were intraaortic balloon pumps (72%), Impella (17%), and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (11%), although intraaortic balloon pump use also varied between centers (range: 40%–100%). Patients managed with intraaortic balloon pump versus other forms of MCS (advanced MCS) had lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and less severe metabolic derangements. Illness severity was similar at high- versus low-MCS utilizing centers and at centers with more advanced MCS use. Conclusions: There is wide variation in the use of temporary MCS among patients with shock in tertiary CICUs. While hospital-level variation in temporary MCS device selection is not explained by differences in illness severity, patient-level variation appears to be related, at least in part, to illness severity.

Heart failure (HF) is a clinical syndrome of diverse etiologies and can be associated with preserved, reduced, or mid-range ejection fraction (EF). In the community, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is emerging as the most common form of HF. There remains considerable uncertainty regarding its pathogenesis, diagnosis, and optimal therapeutic approach. Hypotheses have been advanced to explain the underlying pathophysiology responsible for HFpEF, but to date, no specific therapy based on these hypotheses has been proven to improve outcomes in HFpEF. We provide a clinically focused review of the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic approach, pathophysiology, and treatment of HFpEF.