Real-world long-term survival after non-emergent percutaneous coronary intervention to unprotected left main coronary artery - From the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry

BACKGROUND

Current evidence suggests that percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMPCI) in selected patients is a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting. However, real-world long-term survival data is limited.

METHODS

We analyzed 24,644 patients from the MIG (Melbourne Interventional Group) registry between 2005 and 2020. We compared baseline clinical and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, and long-term survival between unprotected LMPCI and non-LMPCI among patients without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

Unprotected LMPCI patients (n = 185) were significantly older (mean age 72.0 vs. 64.6 years, p < 0.001), had higher prevalence of impaired ejection fraction (EF <50 %; 27.3 % vs. 14.9 %, p < 0.001) and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 (40.9 % vs. 21.5 %, p < 0.001), and had greater use of intravascular ultrasound (21 % vs. 1 %, p < 0.001) and drug-eluting stents (p < 0.001). LMPCI was associated with longer hospital stay (4 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in other in-hospital outcomes, 30-day mortality (0.6 % vs. 0.6 %, p = 0.90), and major adverse cardiac events (1.7 % vs. 3 %, p = 0.28). Although the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival to 8 years was significantly less with LMPCI compared to non-LMPCI (p < 0.01), LMPCI was not a predictor of long-term survival up to 8 years after Cox regression analysis (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.40-1.13, p = 0.13).

CONCLUSION

In this study, non-emergent unprotected LMPCI was uncommonly performed, and IVUS was underutilized. Despite greater co-morbidities, LMPCI patients had comparable 30-day outcomes to non-LMPCI, and LMPCI was not an independent predictor of long-term mortality.

Coronary Angiography Complicated by Acute Ischaemic Stroke and the Use of Thrombolysis: a Cardiology Perspective and Narrative Review of Current Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary angiography-associated acute ischaemic stroke (CAAIS) is an uncommon event but is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. The incidence of CAAIS has increased with a rise in the volume of coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed. Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is utilized in the general management of acute ischaemic stroke; however, it is associated with a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). As CA or PCI is performed more often in an aging population or high-risk patients that also carry an increased risk of ICH, it is vital to minimize additional complications from the treatment of CAAIS. This article aims to review the pathophysiological mechanisms for CAAIS, clarify the current evidence regarding IVT use in this setting, and thus assist cardiologists in the management of CAAIS.

RECENT FINDINGS

The pathophysiology for CAAIS may be different from acute ischaemic stroke in the general population. Embolic phenomena from dislodgement of calcium or other debris during manipulation of instrumentation during CA or PCI are likely mechanisms. This may contribute to altered thrombus composition, which affects the efficacy of IVT as suggested in recent studies. Furthermore, IVT in the management of CAAIS has not been evaluated specifically. The utilization of IVT should be carefully considered in CAAIS given a paucity of evidence demonstrating safety and efficacy in this setting. A multidisciplinary pathway that emphasizes the involvement of cardiologists in the treatment decision-making process would aid in thoughtful risk-benefit evaluation for IVT use in CAAIS and reduce adverse patient outcomes. Future studies to assess the impact of this pathway on CAAIS outcomes would be beneficial.

Improved Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Conduction system pacing (CSP) - His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) - are emerging alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure. However, evidence is largely limited to small and observational studies. We conducted a meta-analysis including a total of 15 randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compare CSP (HBP & LBBAP) with BVP in patients with CRT indications. We assessed the mean differences in QRS duration (QRSd), pacing threshold, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class score. CSP resulted in a pooled mean QRSd improvement of -20.3 ms (95% CI -26.1 - -14.5, p<0.05, I²=87.1%) versus BVP. For LVEF, a weighted mean increase of 5.2% (95% CI 3.5-6.9, p<0.05, I²=55.6) was observed following CSP versus BVP. The mean NYHA score was reduced by -0.40 (95% CI -0.6 - -0.2, p<0.05, I²=61.7) post-CSP versus BVP. Subgroup analysis of outcomes by LBBAP and HBP demonstrated statistically significant weighted mean improvements from both CSP modalities for QRSd and LVEF compared to BVP. LBBAP resulted in NYHA improvement compared to BVP without differences between CSP subgroups. LBBAP is associated with a significantly lowered mean pacing threshold of -0.51V (95% CI -0.68 - -0.38) whilst HBP had increased the mean threshold (0.62V, 95% CI -0.03 - 1.26) compared to BVP, however, this was associated with significant heterogeneity. Overall, both CSP techniques are feasible and effective CRT alternatives for heart failure. Further RCTs are needed to establish long-term efficacy and safety.