Anticoagulation for percutaneous coronary intervention

Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic Shock Interventional Approach to Management in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories

Despite advances in early reperfusion and a technologic renaissance in the space of Mechanical Circulatory Support (MCS), Cardiogenic Shock (CS) remains the leading cause of in-hospital mortality following Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). Given the challenges inherent to conducting adequately powered randomized controlled trials in this time-sensitive, hemodynamically complex, and highly lethal syndrome, treatment recommendations have been derived from AMI patients without shock. In this review, we aimed to (1) examine the pathophysiology and the new classification system for CS; (2) provide a comprehensive, evidence-based review for best practices for interventional management of AMI-CS in the cardiac catheterization laboratory; and (3) highlight the concept of how frailty and geriatric syndromes can be integrated into the decision process and where medical futility lies in the spectrum of AMI-CS care. Management strategies in the cardiac catheterization laboratory for CS include optimal vascular access, periprocedural antithrombotic therapy, culprit lesion versus multi-vessel revascularization, selective utilization of hemodynamic MCS tailored to individual shock hemometabolic profiles, and management of cardiac arrest. Efforts to advance clinical evidence for patients with CS should be concentrated on (1) the coordination of multi-center registries; (2) development of pragmatic clinical trials designed to evaluate innovative therapies; (3) establishment of multidisciplinary care models that will inform quality care and improve clinical outcomes.

Transfemoral Approach for Coronary Angiography and Intervention: A Collaboration of International Cardiovascular Societies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to examine the current practice and use of transfemoral approach (TFA) for coronary angiography and intervention.

BACKGROUND

Wide variability exists in TFA techniques for coronary procedures.

METHODS

The authors developed a survey instrument that was distributed via e-mail lists from professional societies to interventional cardiologists from 88 countries between March and December 2016.

RESULTS

Of 987 operators, 18% were femoralists, 38% radialists, 42% both, and 2% neither. Access using femoral pulse palpation alone was preferred by 60% of operators, fluoroscopy guidance by 11%, and a combination of palpation, fluoroscopy, or ultrasound by 27%. Only 11% used micropuncture in >90% of their cases. Performing femoral angiography immediately after access was preferred by 23% and at the end of the procedure by 47%, and not done at all by 31% of operators. Hemostasis by manual compression was preferred by 50%, collagen plug vascular closure device by 31%, and suture-based vascular closure device by 11% of operators. Judkins left and right catheters were preferred for diagnostic angiography of the left (99%) and right (94%) coronary arteries. Extra backup curves (XB or EBU) were most commonly preferred for percutaneous coronary intervention of the left anterior descending (80%) and left circumflex (80%), whereas the Judkins right catheter was preferred for percutaneous coronary intervention of the right coronary artery (86%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variability in preferences for femoral access technique. Even though recommended best practices advocate for fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance, most operators use palpation alone. Femoral angiography is also not consistently used despite guideline recommendations. The lack of adoption of imaging guidance for vascular access deserves further investigation.