Contemporary approach to thrombus containing lesions during primary percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the ORPKI National Registry in Poland)

Background

In the era of potent P2Y12 inhibitors, according to current guidelines on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) should be limited to selected bail-out or highly thrombotic situations. Similarly, aspiration thrombectomy (AT) is downgraded in current guidelines for very selective but not routine usage. Both recommendations make the treatment of thrombus containing lesions somewhat defensive, underlining the need for an individualized approach to STEMI patients. However, data concerning current clinical practice of such approach are limited.

Purpose

We examined the prevalence, procedural characteristics, and predictors of GPI administration and AT usage in all-comers contemporary STEMI patients referred to primary PCI in Poland.

Methods

We focused on 116,873 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI in Poland between 2015 and 2020.

Results

GPIs were administered in 29.3% of patients and AT was used in 11.6%, with combined treatment with GPI and AT in 6.1% of patients. There was a slight trend towards a decrease in GPI and AT usage during the analyzed years. On the opposite, there was a rapid growth of the ticagrelor/prasugrel usage rate from 6.5% in 2015 to 48.1% in 2020 (Figure 1). Patients with periprocedural GPI administration and combined strategy with GPI and AT were younger, more often men, with history of smoking and presented with cardiogenic shock on admission. They were less likely to have diabetes, chronic kidney disease and previous stroke. Occluded infarct-related artery in baseline angiography and no-reflow during PCI were the strongest independent predictors of GPI administration and combined usage of GPI and AT in a multivariate logistic regression model. Similarly, administration of ticagrelor/prasugrel was an independent predictor of both adjunctive treatment strategies (see table for details).

Conclusions

Despite the rapid growth of potent P2Y12 inhibitors usage in Poland in recent years, GPI and AT are selectively used at a stable level during primary PCI in highly thrombotic STEMI lesions.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Treatment delay and clinical outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected access to health-care system and timeline of treatment. The fear of contamination might potentially forbear from accessing the emergency system.mFurthermore, pandemic-specific protocols require additional time to prepare medical stuff and catheterization laboratory before procedure. Thus, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) might be exposed to a longer delay for revascularization and higher risk of mortality.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment delay and clinical outcomes in COVID-19 positive and negative patients with STEMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during on- and off hours.

Methods

All consecutive patients with STEMI treated with PCI and stent implantation between 1st March 2020 and 31st December 2020 were enrolled into analysis. To overcome potential bias related to the non-randomized design a propensity score match (PSM) was used to compare COVID-19 positive and negative patients for both working frames hours. The study group consisted of 877 matched pairs treated during regular hours (everyday 7:00AM-16:59PM) and 418 matched pairs with PCI performed during off-hours (everyday 17:00PM and 06:59AM) in 151 tertiary invasive cardiology centers in Poland (the ORPKI Polish National Registry).

Results

After PSM there were no differences between COVID-19 positive and negative patients in baseline characteristics during both on- and off-hours. However, patients diagnosed with COVID-19 were admitted with cardiac arrest more frequently as compared to COVID-19 negative patients during regular working hours (180 (20.5%) vs. 64 (7.30%); p=0.001). There were no differences in radiation doses and total amount of contrast between both groups. Similarly, no differences in rate of periprocedural complications were observed despite of time of intervention, including stroke, access-site-related bleeding, allergic reaction and coronary artery perforation. Furthermore, there were no differences in periprocedural mortality between both groups (on-hours: COVID-19 negative vs. COVID-19 positive: 17 (1.9%) vs. 11 (1.3%),p=0.3; off-hours: COVID-19 negative vs. COVID-19 positive: 4 (1.0%) vs. 7 (1.7%),p=0.5). However, COVID-19 positive patients were exposed to longer time from first medical contact to angiography during both on-hours (133.76 (±137.10) vs. 117.14 (±135.83) [min]; p=0.001) and off-hours (148.08 (±201.56) vs. 112.19 (±138.72) [min]; p=0.003). Time from pain to first medical contact remained similar during both working frame hours (On-hours and off-hours, respectively: p=0.7 and p=0.9).

Conclusions

Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 might experience a longer time from first medical contact to revascularization. There was no impact of COVID-19 diagnosis on rate of periprocedural mortality or periprocedural complication, irrespective of time of intervention. System-level changes might be crucial to improve health-care during COVID-19 pandemic.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None.

Comparison of iFR and FFR for coronary physiology evaluation in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Background

Reliable coronary physiology assessment with pressure derived indexes in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) rises problems due to its complex nature. Recent data suggest that fractional flow reserve (FFR) may underestimate intermediate coronary stenosis in a presence of AS whereas instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) values may remain similar after treatment of AS. Furthermore, both indices has not been validated yet in AS.

Aim

We aimed to find a thresholds for coronary ischemia in the setting of aortic

Material and methods

The functional significance of 416 coronary lesions was investigated with iFR and FFR measurements in 221 AS patients. The iFR-FFR diagnostic agreement has been tested using the cut-off value for iFR of 0.89.

Results

Mean value of %DS was 58.6±13.4%, FFR was 0.85±0.07 and iFR – 0.90±0.04. FFR ≤0.80 was measured in 26.0% of interrogated vessels, iFR ≤0.89 – in 33.2%. The correlation between iFR and FFR was good (r=0.83, p<0.001) and with good agreement between iFR and FFR (mean difference −0.0059, 95% CI −0.056–0.062). The AUC at ROC curve analysis for iFR ≤0.89 was 0,997 (0,986 to 1,000, p<0.001) for FFR. According to ROC analysis, the best FFR cut-off in predicting iFR ≤0.89 was ≤0.82 (J=0.96). The diagnostic accuracy for identifying iFR ≤0.89 was 97.7% for FFR.

Conclusion

In the presence of AS, FFR had good agreement with iFR values. However, FFR threshold for predicting iFR below 0.89 may be different from a standard threshold and that should be taken into account while assessing coronary physiology in the setting of AS.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): National Science Center

Comparison of FFR with iFR and QFR in assessment of intermediate coronary artery disease in patients with severe aortic stenosis

Background

The functional assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) has been barely examined so far, and the best strategy to physiologically investigate the relevance of coronary stenosis in this specific setting of patients remains undetermined. The aim of the study is to compare the diagnostic performance of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), quantitative flow ratio (QFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) in patients with severe AS.

Methods

The functional significance of 416 coronary lesions was investigated with iFR, FFR and QFR measurements in 221 AS patients. The iFR-FFR and QFR-FFR diagnostic agreement has been tested using the conventional 0.80 FFR cut-off.

Results

Mean value of FFR was 0.85±0.07; iFR – 0.90±0.04; QFR – 0.84±0.07. The correlation between iFR and FFR was good (r=0.83, p<0.001) and QFR and FFR was goot too (r=0.77, p<0.001), as well as the area under the curve at ROC curve analysis 0,995 (0,983 to 0,999, p<0.001) for iFR and 0,988 (0,972 to 0,996, p<0.001) for QFR. However, using the standard iFR 0.89 and QFR 0.8 threshold, the diagnostic accuracy of iFR was 100% sensitivity and 90.26% specificity and for QFR – 100% and 92.21%, respectively. According to ROC analysis, the best iFR cut-off in predicting FFR ≤0.8 was 0.88 (J=0.94), the best QFR cut-off value was 0.80 (J=0.92).

Conclusions

In the presence of severe AS, iFR and QFR had good agreement with FFR values for assessment of borderline coronary lesions. However, iFR threshold for predicting FFR below 0.8 may be different from a standard value of 0.89.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): National Science Centre

Percutaneous coronary intervention during on- and off-hours in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Introduction

There are conflicting data on the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) based on time of intervention. Concerns have been postulated regarding equally effective in-hospital outcomes for STEMI patients treated with PCI during normal working hours as compared to group treated off-hours.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to assess clinical outcomes in “real-world” patients with STEMI treated with PCI during off-hours and regular hours of work.

Methods

To avoid possible bias related to the non-randomized design, a propensity score was calculated to compare off- and on-hours groups. The study group consisted of 37, 469 matched pairs in STEMI treated with PCI and stent implantation between 2014 and 2018 during regular hours (weekdays 7:00 AM to 16:59 PM) and off-hours (weekdays between 17:00 PM and 06:59AM, weekends, and holidays) in 151 tertiary invasive cardiology centers in Poland (the ORPKI Polish National Registry).

Results

No differences were reported between both groups in baseline characteristics after the propensity score match (PSM). There were no differences in time from pain to first contact (p=0.2) and door to balloon time between both groups (p=0.7). After PSM higher radiation dose was observed in off-hours group (1055.18 (±1006.52) vs. 1081.59 (±1003.25)[mGy]; p=0.001). However, there was no difference in total amount of contrast (on-hours vs. off-hours: 175.69 (±74.71) vs. 176.48 (±74.41)[ml]; p=0.1, respectively). Similar rate of periprocedural complications was observed between both groups of patients, includind stroke, access-site-related bleeding, allergic reaction and coronary artery perforation. However, procedures performed during off-hours were associated with higher incidence of periprocedural death (1.17% (439) vs. 1.49% (559); p=0.001) and periprocedural cardiac arrest (1.76% (658) vs.1.97% (740); p=0.001) as compared to PCI conducted within normal working hours.

Conclusions

Percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI performed durgin off-hours might be associated with higher rate of periprocedural mortality and higher radiation dose as compared to procedures conducted during regular working hours.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: None

P4597Impact of operator experience with radial approach for clinical outcome on percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndrome performed with femoral artery access site

Introduction

Radial approach (RA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with reduced mortality and access site complications. The routine use of the RA in patients should be strongly considered, keeping in mind the learning curve associated with the technique. However, promotion of RA may interfere with the equally important goal of maintaining proficiency in the femoral approach (FA), which is essential in a variety of procedures as well as when RA fails. There is possible risk of higher rate of complications in PCI with FA performed by operators mainly using radial artery as access site.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate impact of experience and proficiency with RA for clinical outcomes on PCI via FA in “real-world” patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

A total of 539 invasive cardiologists performing PCI in 151 invasive cardiology centers on the Polish territory between 2014 and 2017 were included in study analysis. Proficiency threshold has been set at >400 procedures during four consecutive years per individual operator. They were categorized to quartiles according to total volume of radial artery utilization during all PCIs. Procedures performed on patients with Killip-Kimball class IV on admission to catheterisation laboratory were excluded from analysis.

Results

The most of the operators performed >75% of all procedures via radial artery (326 (60.5%)), 112 (20.8%) used RA in 50–75% of cases, 67 (12.4%) in 25–50% of all PCIs and only 34 (6.3%) invasive cardiologist were using RA in less than 25% of all procedures. Mortality during PCI via FA was higher in group of invasive cardiologist with >75% of all procedures performed with radial access (>75% vs. 50–75% vs. 25–50% vs. <25%: 1.63% (±2.52%) vs. 0.93% (±1.05%) vs. 0.68% (±0.73%) vs. 0.31% (±0.40%); p=0.01). A trend towards higher rate of bleeding at the puncture site during PCI procedures with femoral artery were reported in groups of operators with higher expertise in RA (>75% vs. 50–75% vs. 25–50% vs. <25%: 0.43% (±1.09%) vs. 0.14% (±0.36%) vs. 0.21% (±0.45%) vs. 0.14% (±0.37%); p=0.09).

Conclusions

Higher experience in radial access might be linked to worse outcome in PCI via FA in ACS settings. Femoral artery is important vascular approach and should not be abandoned while learning procedures with radial artery utilization.

Acknowledgement/Funding

None

P5536Comparison of safety and effectiveness between right and left radial artery approach in percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. Propensity score analysis of data from the ORPKI

Introduction

The use of the radial approach (RA) for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has gradually increased. Several studies demonstrated that radial artery is associated with significant reduction in major adverse cardiac events for both coronary angiography and PCI in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, it is still unclear if the side of RA has influence on clinical outcomes in an all-comer population in ACS settings.

Purpose

We sought to evaluate safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of right radial approach (RRA) compared to left radial approach (LRA) during PCI in “real-world” patients with ACS.

Methods

A total of 234,087 consecutive patients with ACS treated with PCI and stent implantation via radial approach between 2014 and 2017 in 151 invasive cardiology centers on the Polish territory. Data was based on the ORPKI Polish National Registry. Patients treated with RRA and LRA were compared using a propensity score analysis to avoid possible selection bias. The analysis was done in an “as-treated” manner.

Results

Procedure was conducted using RRA and LRA in 180,378 (77.1%) and 53,709 (22.9%) patients, respectively. After propensity score matching higher total amount of contrast (174.28 (±75.56) vs. 166.95 (±70.57) [ml]; P=0.001) and radiation doses were reported in PCI with left radial artery utilization (1210.21 (±1003.53) vs. 1054.07 (±1024.17) [mGy]; p=0.001). No differences were observed between RRA and LRA in rate of periprocedural adverse events such as myocardial infarction (0.08% vs. 0.08%; p=0.9) stroke (0.02% vs. 0.01%; p=0.1), no-reflow phenomenon (0.64%vs. 0.56%; p=0.1) and death (0.25% vs. 0.24%; p=0.7). A trend towards a lower rate of access-site-related bleeding during PCI was observed in RRA group (0.08% vs. 0.05%; p=0.066). Coronary artery perforation (0.21% vs. 0.16%; p=0.05) and cardiac arrest (0.56% vs 0.42%; p=0.01) were reported more often during PCI conducted with LRA.

Conclusions

Both radial approaches seems to be equally effective in the setting of PCI in ACS. However, utilization of left radial artery was associated with trend toward increased risk of access-site bleeding and higher rate of periprocedural complications as compared to RRA. Higher amount of contrast and radiation doses used in LRA procedures might be equivalent of generally lower experience with this access site.

Acknowledgement/Funding

None

Long-term mortality and follow-up after carotid artery stenting

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for the prevention of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). The high long-term mortality among patients who underwent CAS seems to be related to the high comorbidity burden, including coronary and peripheral artery disease. However, limited data on very long-term mortality (over four years) and predictors of death are available.

AIM

We sought to investigate the very long-term survival after CAS and the impact of comorbidities on mortality at follow-up.

METHODS

Data of 194 symptomatic and asymptomatic patients who underwent CAS with cerebral protection systems from December 2002 to March 2014 were analyzed. All cause mortality during long-term follow-up was assessed. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to find independent predictors of death.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 66 [interquartile range (IQR): 60-73] years and 78.9 % of patients were male. The median follow-up was 7.6 (IQR: 4.4-10.2) years. The all-cause mortality rate after 30 days, one year, four years, and at maximum follow-up was 0 %, 5.1 %, 17.5 % and 31.4 %, respectively. Out of 61 deaths, 37 (60 %) were cardio-cerebral vascular related deaths, 15 (25 %) non-cardiovascular deaths, and 9 (15 %) due to unknown reasons. Among cardio-cerebral vascular deaths, there were 12 fatal strokes, 18 fatal myocardial infarctions and seven other cardiac related deaths. Non-cardiac deaths were due mainly to cancer (9/15). Age and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors of all-cause death during long-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The mortality rate during short and long-term follow-up after CAS was lower than reported in the literature. Age and diabetes mellitus were independent predictors of all-cause death. Further research is needed to confirm the potential association between those risk factors and decreased survival. Hippokratia 2016, 20(3): 204-208.

Advantages of MGuard coronary stent system

Effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within thrombus containing lesions (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction setting, degenerated saphenous venous grafts) is limited by the risk of occurrence of distal embolization and no-reflow phenomenon. Several pharmacological agents, as well as mechanical devices (i.e. manual aspiration catheters/mechanical thrombectomy, proximal and distal protection devices) were introduced, in the last years, to reduce the risk of angiographic complications during percutaneous coronary intervention and to improve myocardial reperfusion. Recently, the MGuard stent (Inspire MD, Tel Aviv, Israel), a bare-metal stent covered by micron level mesh, which allows to prevent distal embolization by blocking the atherothrombi prolapse through the stent struts during deployment has been introduced. This article discusses the data concerning safety and efficacy of mesh covered stent implantation in a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction setting, as well as during percutaneous coronary intervention in saphenous venous grafts.