Procedural variation in the performance of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A SCAI-based survey study of US interventional cardiologists

Reasons for repeat urgent cardiac procedures within the same day

BACKGROUND

With advances in technology and technique, the expectations are that patients undergoing procedures in the cardiac catheterization laboratory will not need to return for a repeat procedure within the same day.

OBJECTIVES

Report why subjects undergoing cardiac procedures return urgently to the catheterization laboratory for a repeat procedure during the same day.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who were brought back to the cardiac catheterization laboratory within the same day for a repeat procedure. The reasons for index and repeat procedure were identified. Patients who were transferred from an outside center after an initial procedure at other centers were excluded.

RESULTS

Between November 2013 and January 2022, 55,942 catheterization procedures were performed at our institution, of which 140 entries were included in our analysis. Common reasons for the index procedure were diagnostic angiography (35.0%), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, 29.2%), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (15.0%). The most common reason for bringing these patients back to the cardiac catheterization laboratory within the same day was vascular complications (24.2%), followed by repeat PCI (20.7%), need for hemodynamic support (15.0%), heart team discussion and PCI (10%), and pacemaker implantation (10%). Acute limb ischemia was the most commonly identified vascular complication (7.1%), followed by pseudoaneurysm (5%).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that a very small number of patients underwent repeat procedures within the same day. Special attention should be paid to vascular access and closure and assessment of recurrent chest pain postprocedure, as these are the main reasons for same-day repeat procedures.

Vascular Closure: the ABC's

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Vascular access and closure is a key part of endovascular procedures, and access site-related complications are an independent predictor of adverse procedural outcomes. The purpose of this review is to discuss the methods of vascular closure including manual compression, vascular closure devices (VCDs) for both arterial and venous arteriotomies, their mechanisms, and access site-related complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Various VCDs have been approved over the last three decades. These devices have different mechanisms to achieve hemostasis and are generally categorized into active and passive approximators. Studies have largely found that they are non-inferior to manual compression. Uncomplicated vascular closure is pertinent to avoid adverse procedure-related outcomes. The emergence of VCDs has reduced time to hemostasis, facilitating early ambulation and discharge and reducing hospitalization cost with comparable complication rate to manual compression. Nonetheless, they should be used in favorable vascular anatomy and are not intended to reduce complications.

Understanding timely STEMI treatment performance: A 3-year retrospective cohort study using diagnosis-to-balloon-time and care subintervals

OBJECTIVE

From the perspective of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centers, locations of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) diagnosis can include a referring facility, emergency medical services (EMS) transporting to a PCI center, or the PCI center's emergency department (ED). This challenges the use of door-to-balloon-time as the primary evaluative measure of STEMI treatment pathways. Our objective was to identify opportunities to improve care by quantifying differences in the timeliness of STEMI treatment mobilization based on the location of the diagnostic ECG.

METHODS

This 3-year, single-center, retrospective cohort study classified patients by diagnostic ECG location: referring facility, EMS, or PCI center ED. We quantified door-to-balloon-time and diagnosis-to-balloon-time with its care subintervals.

RESULTS

Of 207 ED STEMI patients, 180 (87%) received PCI. Median diagnosis-to-balloon-times were shortest among the ED-diagnosed (78 minutes [interquartile range (IQR), 61-92]), followed by EMS-identified patients (89 minutes [IQR, 78-122]), and longest among those referred (140 minutes [IQR, 119-160]), reflecting time for transport to the PCI center. Conversely, referred patients had the shortest median door-to-balloon-times (38 minutes [IQR, 34-43]), followed by the EMS-identified (64 minutes [IQR, 47-77]), whereas ED-diagnosed patients had the longest (89 minutes [IQR, 70-114]), reflecting diagnosis and catheterization lab activation frequently occurring before PCI center ED arrival for referred and EMS-identified patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnosis-to-balloon-time and its care subintervals are complementary to the traditional door-to-balloon-times as measures of the STEMI treatment process. Together, they highlight opportunities to improve timely identification among ED-diagnosed patients, use of out-of-hospital cath lab activation for EMS-identified patients, and encourage pathways for referred patients to bypass PCI center EDs.

Predicting the infarct-related artery in STEMI from the surface ECG: independent validation of proposed criteria

AIMS

This study independently evaluated the diagnostic performance of electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria to predict the infarct-related artery (IRA) in patients with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). While a number of ECG criteria have been proposed to predict the IRA in STEMI, many of these "rules" came from modestly sized populations and did not undergo external validation. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate popular criteria from the literature in an independent cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All acute STEMI cases over a 10-year period from a single hospital were retrospectively identified. We excluded patients with a missing pre-intervention ECG, irretrievable angiographic films, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, left bundle branch block, ventricular pacing, or not meeting strict STEMI criteria. After review of the angiograms for the IRA, cases with either no or multiple culprits were excluded. We included 480 subjects meeting STEMI criteria in inferior leads (192, 40%), anterior leads (184, 38%), both anterior and inferior leads (88, 18%), isolated lateral leads (nine, 2%), or a posterior pattern (seven, 1%). Notably, every pattern except isolated lateral STEMI included an IRA in both the right and left coronary arteries.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing ECG criteria to predict the IRA in STEMI have modest diagnostic performance when externally validated, and lower than in the original reports. Distinguishing the level of obstruction in the left anterior descending artery remains especially challenging. Hence, their use should be pragmatic when selecting an initial catheter for treating STEMI, since discordances will occur when compared to the actual angiogram.

Transradial Artery Access in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock

Early revascularization is the gold standard for management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock (CS). The use of transradial artery access (TRA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased in recent years and has emerged as a safe and effective approach to PCI in high-risk patients, with advantages in reduced major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and all-cause mortality when compared with transfemoral artery access (TFA). Multiple randomized clinical trials have demonstrated these advantages of TRA vs. TFA PCI in STEMI patients. Although there remains a lack of dedicated randomized trials in CS, observational data suggest benefits on the same endpoints as in STEMI with TRA vs. TFA PCI in CS. This review summarizes the existing literature on the use of TRA compared to TFA for STEMI and CS patients; the reduction of major bleeding events, other peri-procedural complications, and mortality associated with TRA in STEMI and CS; and technical considerations and challenges in the care of these high-risk patient populations.

Comparison of manual compression and vascular hemostasis devices after coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention through femoral artery access: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of manual compression (MC) with vascular hemostasis devices (VHD) in patients undergoing coronary angiography (CA) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) through femoral artery access.

INTRODUCTION

The use of femoral artery access for coronary procedures may result in access-related complications, prolonged immobility and discomfort for the patients. MC results in longer time-to-hemostasis (TTH) and time-to-ambulation (TTA) compared to VHDs but its role in access-related complications remains unclear in patients undergoing coronary procedures.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and relevant references for English language randomized controlled trials (RCT) from inception through September 30, 2016. We performed the meta-analysis using random effects model. The outcomes were time-to-hemostasis, time-to-ambulation, major bleeding, large hematoma >5cm, pseudoaneurysm and other adverse events.

RESULTS

The electronic database search resulted in a total of 44 RCTs with a total of 18,802 patients for analysis. MC, compared to VHD resulted in longer TTH [mean difference (MD): 11.21min; 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.13-14.29; P<0.00001] and TTA [standardized mean difference: 1.2 (0.79-1.62); P<0.00001] along with excess risk of hematoma >5cm formation [risk ratio (RR): 1.38 (1.15-1.67); P=0.0008]. MC resulted in similar risk of major bleeding [1.01 (0.64-1.60); P=0.95] pseudoaneurysm [0.99 (0.75-1.29); P=0.92], infections [0.52 (0.25-1.10); P=0.09], need of surgery [0.60 (0.29-1.22); P=0.16), AV fistula [0.93 (0.68-1.27); P=0.63] and ipsilateral leg ischemia [0.95 (0.57-1.60); P=0.86] compared to VHD.

CONCLUSION

Manual compression increase time-to-hemostasis, time-to-ambulation and risk of hematoma formation compared vascular hemostasis devices.

Procedural Variations in Performing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Multiple variations exist in performing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) among various cardiologists. These variations range from the choice of peripheral access artery (radial vs femoral), performance or time of complete angiography including left ventriculography, and nonculprit vessel angiography before or after intervening on the culprit vessel. The reasons for such variations include emphasis on door-to-balloon time, knowledge of cardiac anatomy before proceeding with pPCI, physician expertise, and the level of comfort with radial approach. Over the last 2 decades, the field of interventional cardiology has changed dynamically leading to marked improvements in the clinical outcomes of patients with STEMI. This includes upstreaming of pPCI along with technical advancements ranging from radial artery catheterization to culprit lesion-guided approach. Increased comfort with use of radial access approach by cardiologists and availability of multiuse guide catheters would both reduce door-to-balloon time and enable complete coronary angiography before performance of percutaneous coronary intervention. There are no clear guidelines or consensus dictating on cardiologists a correct sequence of action during STEMI, or even suggesting what the preferred approach is. Lack of guidelines results in a substantive variation in methodology. This review aims to highlight and to better understand the variations in the current practice, and to emphasize the advantages as well as the disadvantages of each approach. It is also perhaps a call out for guidelines that direct cardiologists to the best practice.

Effectiveness of the implementation of a simple radiation reduction protocol in the catheterization laboratory

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

A reduction in radiation doses at the catheterization laboratory, maintaining the quality of procedures is essential. Our objective was to analyze the results of a simple radiation reduction protocol at a high-volume interventional cardiology unit.

METHODS

We analyzed 1160 consecutive procedures: 580 performed before the implementation of the protocol and 580 after it. The protocol consisted in: the reduction of the number of ventriculographies and aortographies, the optimization of the collimation and the geometry of the X ray tube-patient-receptor, the use of low dose-rate fluoroscopy and the reduction of the number of cine sequences using the software "last fluoroscopy hold".

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in clinical baseline features or in the procedural characteristics with the exception of a higher percentage of radial approach (30.7% vs 69.6%; p<0.001) and of percutaneous coronary interventions of chronic total occlusions after the implementation of the protocol (2.1% vs 6.7%; p=0,001). Angiographic success was similar during both periods (98.3% vs 99.2%; p=0.2). There were no significant differences between both periods regarding the overall duration of the procedures (26.9 vs 29.6min; p=0.14), or the fluoroscopy time (13.3 vs 13.2min; p=0.8). We observed a reduction in the percentage of procedures with ventriculography (80.9% vs 7.1%; p<0.0001) or aortography (15.4% vs 4.4%; p<0.0001), the cine runs (21.8 vs 6.9; p<0.0001) and the dose-area product (165 vs 71 Gyxcm(2); p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

With the implementation of a simple radiation reduction protocol, a 57% reduction of dose-area product was observed without a reduction in the quality or the complexity of procedures.

Does reducing ischemia time justify to catheterize firstly the culprit artery in every primary PCI?

No consensus exists about which coronary artery should be firstly catheterized in primary PCIs. Initial catheterization of the "culprit artery" could reduce reperfusion time. However, complete knowledge of coronary anatomy could modify revascularization strategy. The objective of the study was to analyze this issue in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary PCI. PCIs were performed in 384 consecutive patients. Choice of ipsilateral approach (IA): starting with a guiding catheter for the angiography and PCI of the "culprit artery", or contralateral approach (CA): starting with a diagnostic catheter for the "non-culprit artery" and completing the angiography and PCI of the culprit with a guiding catheter was left to the operator. Differences between two approaches regarding reperfusion time, acute events or revascularization strategies were analyzed. There were no differences between two approaches regarding reperfusion time or clinical events. When the left coronary artery was responsible, IA was more frequent (76.4 vs 22.6 %), but when it was the right coronary artery, CA was preferred (20 vs 80 %); p < 0.0001. With CA, bare metal stents (BMS) were more used than drug eluting (DES) (60.8 vs 39.2 %) inversely than with IA (BMS 41.3 vs DES 59.7 %; p < 0.0001). With CA there were more patients with left main or multivessel disease in which revascularization was completed with non-urgent surgery (4.13 vs 2.4 %, p < 0.0001). Initial CA does not involve higher reperfusion time. Furthermore, overall knowledge of coronary anatomy offers more options in revascularization strategy and may imply a change in management. Despite the need to individualize each case, contralateral approach may be the first option with the exception of unstable patients.

Lack of Benefit of Ischemic Postconditioning After Routine Thrombus Aspiration During Reperfusion

Objectives:

The underutilization of manual thrombus aspiration (MTA) may have reduced the benefits of ischemic postconditioning (PostCon), as it reduces thrombus embolization. We aimed to assess the benefits of PostCon in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) after the systematic utilization of MTA.

Methods:

A total of 87 patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized trial (43 PostCon and 44 controls). After MTA, PostCon was performed on the treatment group by applying 4 cycles of alternate reperfusion and reocclusion (60 seconds each) using the angioplasty balloon. The primary end point was infarct size assessed by the area under the curve (AUC) of troponin T (TnT) activity. The secondary end points were left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) and major cardiac events (new myocardial infarction or cardiac death) both at discharge and at follow-up.

Results:

The AUC for TnT was no different with respect to study arms (median [interquartile range]): PostCon = 8.9 (10.6) versus control = 8.2 (10.6), P = .68. Left ventricle ejection fraction improved from in-hospital to follow-up (9 ± 3 months) for the entire cohort (46.3% ± 7.3% vs 52.2% ± 10.7%, P < .001), with no differences between PostCon and controls (51.6% ± 9.5% vs 52.7% ± 11.9%, P = .89); major cardiac events at 14 ± 4 months of follow-up were also no different (PostCon = 1.0 (2.3%) vs control = 0, P = .49).

Conclusion:

In patients with STEMI treated with MTA, PostCon offered no benefits to infarct size, LVEF, or major cardiac events.

Effect of coronary thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention on one-year survival (from the FAST-MI 2010 registry)

Results from randomized trials evaluating thrombus aspiration (TA) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are conflicting. We assessed 1-year survival in STEMI patients participating in the French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation and non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) 2010 according to the use of TA during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). FAST-MI 2010 is a nationwide French registry that included 4,169 patients with acute myocardial infarction at the end of 2010 in 213 centers. Of those, 2,087 patients had STEMI, of whom 1,538 had primary PCI, with TA used in 671 (44%). Patients with TA were younger (61 ± 13.5 vs 63 ± 14 years), with a similar risk score of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (140 ± 31 vs 143 ± 34) and a shorter median time from symptom onset (245 vs 285 minutes); location of acute myocardial infarction, history of myocardial infarction, PCI, or coronary artery bypass surgery did not differ significantly. Thirty-day mortality was 2.1% versus 2.1% (adjusted p = 0.18), and the rate of 1-year survival was 95.5% versus 94.8%. Using fully adjusted Cox multivariate analysis, hazard ratio for 1-year death was 1.13 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.94). After propensity score matching (480 patients per group), 1-year survival was also similar with both strategies. In a real-world setting of patients admitted with STEMI, the use of TA during primary PCI was not associated with improved 1-year survival.