Feldman, Dmitriy N.

Background Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA‐ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA‐ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA‐ECMO. Methods and Results Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA‐ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA‐ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P ‐trend<0.001). In‐hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P =0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in‐hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P =0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P =0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P <0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P =0.002), higher in‐hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P =0.001), and higher 40‐day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P <0.001). Conclusions In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA‐ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform‐specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

AbstractThe Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high‐level field‐wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co‐moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Abstract A substantial number of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) experience periprocedural myocardial injury or infarction. Accurate diagnosis of these PCI-related complications is required to guide further management given that their occurrence may be associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Due to lack of scientific data, the cut-off thresholds of post-PCI cardiac troponin (cTn) elevation used for defining periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction, have been selected based on expert consensus opinions, and their prognostic relevance remains unclear. In this Consensus Document from the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), we recommend, whenever possible, the measurement of baseline (pre-PCI) cTn and post-PCI cTn values in all CCS patients undergoing PCI. We confirm the prognostic relevance of the post-PCI cTn elevation &gt;5× 99th percentile URL threshold used to define type 4a myocardial infarction (MI). In the absence of periprocedural angiographic flow-limiting complications or electrocardiogram (ECG) and imaging evidence of new myocardial ischaemia, we propose the same post-PCI cTn cut-off threshold (&gt;5× 99th percentile URL) be used to define prognostically relevant ‘major’ periprocedural myocardial injury. As both type 4a MI and major periprocedural myocardial injury are strong independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year post-PCI, they may be used as quality metrics and surrogate endpoints for clinical trials. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment strategies for reducing the risk of major periprocedural myocardial injury, type 4a MI, and MACE in CCS patients undergoing PCI.

Abstract Background The prognostic implications of cardiac procedural myocardial injury and infarction (MI) in chronic coronary syndrome patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still debated. Objective To determine the optimal cardiac troponin threshold for identifying prognostically important events. Methods Using a pooled dataset of nine registries and one randomized trial, we analysed individual data of 14,433 patients undergoing elective PCI with a normal or moderately elevated baseline pre-PCI cardiac troponin (cTn). A multivariate model was performed to evaluate the associations between post-PCI cTn elevation and 1-year mortality after PCI, including thresholds used by existing procedural myocardial injury definitions (Fourth Universal Definition of MI [UDMI] and Academic Research Consortium 2 [ARC-2] / Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI)). The association between type 4a MI and 1-year mortality was also evaluated. Results Procedural myocardial injury defined by the Fourth UDMI occurred in 52.5% of patients and was not associated with 1-year mortality (adjOR 1.27, 95% CI [0.90–1.81] p=0.18). The association between post-PCI cTn elevation and 1-year mortality was significant above a 3-fold increase above the upper reference limit, and was optimal for a 5.2-fold increase which corresponded to an 18.3% rate of event, and an adjOR of 2.03 (95% CI [1.31–3.14], p=0.002) (figure). Procedural myocardial injury defined by the ARC-2/SCAI definition occurred in 1.3% of the patients, had a strong association with 1-year mortality (adjOR 4.15, 95% CI [1.62–10.64], p&lt;0.01) but lacked sensitivity (5.2% sensitivity). Type 4a MI occurred in 12.7% of patients, was strongly associated with 1-year mortality (adjOR 3.18, 95% CI [1.47–6.90], p=0.002), but could only be evaluated in a subset of patients (n=3 084) with available data on new myocardial ischaemia post-PCI. Conclusions We have demonstrated that a post-PCI cTn elevation ≥5x the 99th percentile URL in CCS patients with normal baseline cTn, represents the optimal threshold for defining prognostically important or “Major” procedural myocardial injury in the absence of evidence for new myocardial ischaemia. Major procedure related myocardial injury and type 4a MI should be considered as a quality metric and endpoints in clinical trials. Adjusted OR of mortality at 1 year Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Abstract Aims The prognostic importance of cardiac procedural myocardial injury and myocardial infarction (MI) in chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still debated. Methods and results We analysed individual data of 9081 patients undergoing elective PCI with normal pre-PCI baseline cardiac troponin (cTn) levels. Multivariate models evaluated the association between post-PCI elevations in cTn and 1-year mortality, while an interval analysis evaluated the impact of the size of the myocardial injury on mortality. Our analysis was performed in the overall population and also according to the type of cTn used [52.0% had high-sensitivity cTn (hs-cTn)]. Procedural myocardial injury, as defined by the Fourth Universal Definition of MI (UDMI) [post-PCI cTn elevation ≥1 × 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL)], occurred in 52.8% of patients and was not associated with 1-year mortality [adj odds ratio (OR), 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.84–1.77), P = 0.21]. The association between post-PCI cTn elevation and 1-year mortality was significant starting ≥3 × 99th percentile URL. Major myocardial injury defined by post-PCI ≥5 × 99th percentile URL occurred in 18.2% of patients and was associated with a two-fold increase in the adjusted odds of 1-year mortality [2.29, 95% CI (1.32–3.97), P = 0.004]. In the subset of patients for whom periprocedural evidence of ischaemia was collected (n = 2316), Type 4a MI defined by the Fourth UDMI occurred in 12.7% of patients and was strongly associated with 1-year mortality [adj OR 3.21, 95% CI (1.42–7.27), P = 0.005]. We also present our results according to the type of troponin used (hs-cTn or conventional troponin). Conclusion Our analysis has demonstrated that in CCS patients with normal baseline cTn levels, the post-PCI cTn elevation of ≥5 × 99th percentile URL used to define Type 4a MI is associated with 1-year mortality and could be used to detect ‘major’ procedural myocardial injury in the absence of procedural complications or evidence of new myocardial ischaemia.

Abstract Transradial angiography and intervention continues to become increasingly common as an access site for coronary procedures. Since the first “Best Practices” paper in 2013, ongoing trials have shed further light onto the safest and most efficient methods to perform these procedures. Specifically, this document comments on the use of ultrasound to facilitate radial access, the role of ulnar artery access, the utility of non‐invasive testing of collateral flow, strategies to prevent radial artery occlusion, radial access for primary PCI and topics that require further study.

Background— Radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (r-PCI) is associated with reduced vascular complications; however, previous reports have shown that <2% of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures in the United States are performed via the radial approach. Our aims were to evaluate temporal trends in r-PCI and compare procedural outcomes between r-PCI and transfemoral PCI. Methods and Results— We conducted a retrospective cohort study from the CathPCI registry (n=2 820 874 procedures from 1381 sites) between January 2007 and September 2012. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the adjusted association between r-PCI and bleeding, vascular complications, and procedural success, using transfemoral PCI as the reference. Outcomes in high-risk subgroups such as age ≥75 years, women, and patients with acute coronary syndrome were also examined. The proportion of r-PCI procedures increased from 1.2% in quarter 1 2007 to 16.1% in quarter 3 2012 and accounted for 6.3% of total procedures from 2007 to 2012 (n=178 643). After multivariable adjustment, r-PCI use in the studied cohort of patients was associated with lower risk of bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.49–0.54) and lower risk of vascular complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.50) in comparison with transfemoral PCI. The reduction in bleeding and vascular complications was consistent across important subgroups of age, sex, and clinical presentation. Conclusions— There has been increasing adoption of r-PCI in the United States. Transradial PCI now accounts for 1 of 6 PCIs performed in contemporary clinical practice. In comparison with traditional femoral access, transradial PCI is associated with lower vascular and bleeding complication rates.

Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) may be performed during the same session as diagnostic catheterization (ad hoc PCI) or at a later session (delayed PCI). Randomized trials comparing these strategies have not been performed; cohort studies have not identified consistent differences in safety or efficacy between the two strategies. Ad hoc PCI has increased in prevalence over the past decade and is the default strategy for treating acute coronary syndromes. However, questions about its appropriateness for some patients with stable symptoms have been raised by the results of recent large trials comparing PCI to medical therapy or bypass surgery. Ad hoc PCI for stable ischemic heart disease requires preprocedural planning, and reassessment after diagnostic angiography must be performed to ensure its appropriateness. Patients may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is convenient. Payers may prefer ad hoc PCI because it is cost‐efficient. The majority of data confirm equivalent outcomes in ad hoc versus delayed PCI. However, there are some situations in which delayed PCI may be safer or yield better outcomes. This document reviews patient subsets and clinical situations in which one strategy is preferable over the other. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.