Citations

Background The temporal incidence of high‐grade atrioventricular block (HAVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is uncertain. As a result, periprocedural monitoring and pacing strategies remain controversial. This study aimed to describe the temporal incidence of initial episode of HAVB stratified by pre‐ and post‐TAVR conduction and identify predictors of delayed events. Methods and Results Consecutive patients undergoing TAVR at a single center between February 2012 and June 2019 were retrospectively assessed for HAVB within 30 days. Patients with prior aortic valve replacement, permanent pacemaker (PPM), or conversion to surgical replacement were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess predictors of delayed HAVB (initial event >24 hours post‐TAVR). A total of 953 patients were included in this study. HAVB occurred in 153 (16.1%). After exclusion of those with prophylactic PPM placed post‐TAVR, the incidence of delayed HAVB was 33/882 (3.7%). Variables independently associated with delayed HAVB included baseline first‐degree atrioventricular block or right bundle‐branch block, self‐expanding valve, and new left bundle‐branch block. Forty patients had intraprocedural transient HAVB, including 16 who developed HAVB recurrence and 6 who had PPM implantation without recurrence. PPM was placed for HAVB in 130 (13.6%) (self‐expanding valve, 23.7% versus balloon‐expandable valve, 11.9%; P <0.001). Eight (0.8%) patients died by 30 days, including 1 unexplained without PPM present. Conclusions Delayed HAVB occurs with higher frequency in patients with baseline first‐degree atrioventricular block or right bundle‐branch block, new left bundle‐branch block, and self‐expanding valve. These findings provide insight into optimal monitoring and pacing strategies based on periprocedural ECG findings.

Abstract Background Limited data exist on high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) for risk-stratification in COVID-19. Methods We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, observational, US-based study of COVID-19 patients undergoing hs-cTnT. Outcomes included short-term mortality (in-hospital and 30-days post-discharge) and a composite of major adverse events, including respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, cardiac arrest, and shock within the index presentation and/or mortality during the index hospitalization or within 30-days post-discharge. Results Among 367 COVID-19 patients undergoing hs-cTnT, myocardial injury was identified in 46%. They had a higher risk for mortality (20% vs 12%, P &lt; 0.0001; unadjusted HR 4.44, 95% CI 2.13–9.25, P &lt; 0.001) and major adverse events (35% vs. 11%, P &lt; 0.0001; unadjusted OR 4.29, 95% CI 2.50–7.40, P &lt; 0.0001). Myocardial injury was associated with major adverse events (adjusted OR 3.84, 95% CI 2.00–7.36, P &lt; 0.0001) but not mortality. Baseline (adjusted OR 1.003, 95% CI 1.00–1.007, P = 0.047) and maximum (adjusted OR 1.005, 95% CI 1.001–1.009, P = 0.0012) hs-cTnT were independent predictors of major adverse events. Most (95%) increases were due to myocardial injury, with 5% (n = 8) classified as type 1 or 2 myocardial infarction. A single hs-cTnT &lt;6 ng/L identified 26% of patients without mortality, with a 94.9% (95% CI 87.5–98.6) negative predictive value and 93.1% sensitivity (95% CI 83.3–98.1) for major adverse events in those presenting to the ED. Conclusions Myocardial injury is frequent and prognostic in COVID-19. While most hs-cTnT increases are modest and due to myocardial injury, they have important prognostic implications. A single hs-cTnT &lt;6 ng/L at presentation may facilitate the identification of patients with a favorable prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with existing coronary artery stents are at an increased risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) when undergoing noncardiac surgery (NCS). Although the use of antifibrinolytic (AF) therapy in NCS has significantly increased in the past decade, the relationship between perioperative AF use and its association with MACEs among patients with existing coronary artery stents has yet to be assessed. In this study, we aim to evaluate the association of MACEs in patients with existing coronary artery stents who receive perioperative AF therapy during orthopedic surgery. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with existing coronary artery stents who underwent orthopedic surgery from 2008 to 2018. Two cohorts were established: patients with existing coronary artery stents who did not receive perioperative AF and patients with coronary artery stents who received perioperative AF. Associations between AF use and the primary outcome of MACEs within 30 days postoperatively and the secondary outcomes of thrombotic complications, excessive surgical bleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were analyzed using logistic regression models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for confounding. Secondary analyses examining the association between coronary stent type/timing and the outcomes of interest were performed using unadjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients met study criteria, including 294 who did not receive AF and 179 patients who received AF. MACEs occurred in 15 (5.1%) patients who did not receive AF and 1 (0.6%) who received AF ( P = .007). In weighted analyses, no significant difference was found in patients who received AF with regard to MACEs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-1.74, P = .12), thrombotic complications (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.53-2.68, P = .68), or excessive surgical bleeding (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.01-2.23, P = .16) compared to patients who did not receive AF. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are inconclusive whether an association exists between perioperative AF use in patients with coronary artery stents and the outcome of MACEs compared to patients who did not receive perioperative AF therapy. The authors acknowledge that the imprecise CI hinders the ability to definitively determine whether an association exists in the study population. Further large prospective studies, powered to detect differences in MACEs, are needed to assess the safety of perioperative AF in patients with existing coronary artery stents and to clarify the mechanism of perioperative MACEs in this high-risk population.

Abstract Aims There are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI-CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods Using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (&gt;18 years) STEMI-CS admissions receiving pre-hospital/in-hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI-CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, development of non-cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do-not-resuscitate status. Results During 2009–2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non-White, with lower co-morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P &lt; 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P &lt; 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all-cause in-hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity-matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90–1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do-not-resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs. Conclusions The use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in-hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI-CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.

AbstractBackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve‐in‐valve replacement (ViV) has been widely accepted as a less invasive alternative to treat failed aortic surgical or transcatheter bioprosthetic valves. Angulated aortas present an additional challenge, particularly when using self‐expanding transcatheter heart valves (SE‐THV).MethodsTwo patients with failed surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves and one patient with a failed transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valve underwent transcatheter aortic ViV using SE‐THV. All were deemed high‐risk for surgical aortic valve replacement by a heart team. All three patients had initial failed SE‐THV delivery using a conventional approach with subsequent successful delivery using the endovascular snare technique.ResultsIn Cases 1 and 2, the SE‐THV was biased towards the greater curve of the angulated aorta and behind the outer frame of the bioprosthetic valve frame. An endovascular snare was deployed through a secondary left femoral artery access, and the valve delivery system was advanced through the snare in the ascending aorta. The snare was tightened around the SE‐THV capsule proximal to the hat‐marker, allowing deflection of the SE‐THV and successful delivery. In Case 3, the SE‐THV interacted with the tall frame of a failed SE‐THV. A snare via the left femoral artery was deployed in the descending artery. The SE‐THV was advanced through the snare, and both the snare and SE‐THV were advanced together to the ascending aorta where the SE‐THV was deflected and successfully delivered.ConclusionsThe endovascular snare technique is a feasible option for successful delivery of SE‐THV during transcatheter aortic ViV in failed transcatheter or surgical bioprosthetic valves in angulated aortas.

Background: There are limited data on how sex influences the outcomes of acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) in young adults. Methods: A retrospective cohort of AMI-CS admissions aged 18 to 55 years, during 2000 to 2017, was identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Use of coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support and noncardiac interventions was identified. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, use of cardiac interventions, hospitalization costs, and length of stay. Results: A total 90 648 AMI-CS admissions ≤55 years of age were included, of which 26% were women. Higher rates of CS were noted in men (2.2% in 2000 to 4.8% in 2017) compared with women (2.6% in 2000 to 4.0% in 2017; P <0.001). Compared with men, women with AMI-CS were more frequently of Black race, from a lower socioeconomic status, with higher comorbidity, and admitted to rural and small hospitals (all P <0.001). Women had lower rates of ST-segment elevation presentation (73.0% versus 78.7%), acute noncardiac organ failure, cardiac arrest (34.3% versus 35.7%), and received less-frequent coronary angiography (78.3% versus 81.4%), early coronary angiography (49.2% versus 54.1%), percutaneous coronary intervention (59.2% versus 64.0%), and mechanical circulatory support (50.3% versus 59.2%; all P <0.001). Female sex was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (23.0% versus 21.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.07–1.16]; P <0.001). Women had lower hospitalization costs ($156 372±$198 452 versus $167 669±$208 577; P <0.001) but comparable lengths of stay compared with men. Conclusions: In young AMI-CS admissions, women are treated less aggressively and experience higher in-hospital mortality than men.

AbstractObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and safety of robotic PCI performed using an off‐siteremote‐control system in an animal model.BackgroundAccess to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a challenge in acute myocardial infarction management. The combination of telemedicine and robotic PCI allow the potential delivery of primary PCI to remote locations without the delay of transfer.MethodsThis single‐center prospective pilot preclinical feasibility study compared robotic PCI with remote PCI on swine across three stages (adjacent room, different floor of the same building, two different buildings). Latency up to 1,000 ms was introduced into the operating environment to simulate decreased network quality (blinded to operator). The primary outcome measures were technical success and acute safety. The secondary outcome measures included lesion wiring time, procedural time and qualitative scoring of the PCI experience by the operator.ResultsAcross 52 experiments in 15 animals, technical success was 100%. No procedural complications occurred during the study. No significant difference in lesion treatment time was detected between stages (p = .11) and between time per target vessel when latency up to 1,000 ms was introduced (p = .58). Injected delay >250 ms had the greatest impact on procedure perceived lag. Longer procedure time was associated with lower procedure impact score, regardless of injected latency.ConclusionsRemote robotic PCI was feasible and safe in an animal model. Procedural duration was acceptable and unaffected by network latency. Future studies are needed to determine the safety and feasibility of remote PCI in humans.