Cardiology journal最新文献

Background: The DiamondTemp (DT) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) catheter has been introduced as a new tool for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. The new technology allows for temperature-controlled irrigated ablation and real-time lesion assessment. Recently, the EnSite X mapping system became commercially available allowing for omnipolar and ultra-high-resolution mapping. We aimed to assess the feasibility of the new DT RFA catheter in performing AF ablation procedures in conjunction with the novel EnSite X system under routine clinical conditions.

Methods: We analyzed data from 10 consecutive patients who underwent AF ablation using the DT RFA catheter guided by EnSite X. Procedural data and short-term follow-up were assessed as well as potential technical issues.

Results: Nine out of 10 patients underwent de-novo pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), and 1 patient underwent repeat ablation. First-pass isolation was observed in 7/10 patients. Total procedure duration (skin-to-skin) was 88.9 ± 30.1 min, and left atrium dwell time was 70 ± 22.3 min. The mean number of RF applications needed for PVI and additional ablation was 70.52 ± 26.70. The HD Grid SE mapping catheter was utilized in 8 patients and the Advisor SE in 2 patients. Bidirectional block of the applied lines was achieved in all patients. No steam pops were observed, and no intraprocedural complications occurred.

Conclusions: This first clinical series demonstrated that temperature-controlled irrigated ablation in combination with the novel omnipolar and high-resolution mapping system resulted in rapid, efficient, and durable lesion formation under routine clinical conditions. Randomized controlled trials are needed to elucidate the impact on lesion formation, long-term outcomes, and reproducibility of our initial findings.

Background: Clinical evidence has been controversial regarding the influence of low platelet reactivity (LPR), ischemic and bleeding outcomes among patients receiving coronary stent implantation. Hence, the present study performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the significance of LPR on adverse cardiovascular events.

Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched up to November 2020 for relevant studies including patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. LPR was the exposed arm while the non-LPR group represented the control. The primary outcome of interest was bleeding risk including major and minor bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, repeated revascularization, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Study-level outcomes were evaluated in random-effect models.

Results: A total of 20 studies with 19,064 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed that LPR was associated with an increased bleeding risk (relative risk [RR] 2.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95-4.02, p < 0.01). Patients with LPR had a lower risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38-0.91, p < 0.05) and of serious vascular events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.84, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: Low platelet reactivity is associated with an increased bleeding risk of patients who underwent coronary stent implantation. The results suggest possible benefits of this marker in risk stratification, with potential improvement in risk prediction. There are potential advantages using combinations with other factors in prediction models, however, they require further study. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019136393).

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is the third leading cause of cardiovascular death in the western world. Prompt recognition, risk stratification, and individualized treatment are crucial to improve outcomes in patients with PE. Anticoagulation alone is a sufficient therapeutic option in low-risk patients, whereas primary reperfusion with systemic thrombolysis (ST) is usually chosen in high-risk patients. The choice of treatment in intermediate-risk patients is complex and depends on the clinical presentation. Catheter-directed therapy (CDTh) includes all therapies delivered via a catheter placed in the branches of the pulmonary arteries directly into the thrombus. Because ST bears a high risk of major bleeding and numerous patients have contraindications to ST, CDTh is an alternative to ST in intermediate- and high-risk PE patients. CDTh includes local thrombolysis using low-dose alteplase, ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis, and mechanical fragmentation and aspiration of the thrombi, as well as their combinations. In this review article, we have summarized devices and technical details for CDTh, discussed the efficacy and safety of CDTh in comparison to ST in previous clinical trials, and outlined future research directions regarding CDTh, both based on the literature and our personal experience from the local PE Response Team of the Center for the Management of Pulmonary Embolism (CELZAT) in Warsaw.

The presence of coagulopathy as part of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome is a characteristic feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hematological changes (increased D-dimer [DD], prolonged activated partial thromboplastin clotting time [APTT] and prothrombin time [PT], high fibrinogen levels) have been observed in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, which characterize the risk of thrombotic events. Against the background of COVID-19 there is endothelial dysfunction, hypoxia and pulmonary congestion, mediated by thrombosis and microvascular occlusion. Up to 71.4% of patients who died from COVID-19 had disseminated intravascular coagulation syndrome, compared with only 0.6% of survivors. The main manifestation of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy is a significant increase in DD without a decrease in platelet count or prolongation of APTT and PT, indicating increased thrombin formation and the development of local fibrinolysis. An increase in DD levels of more than 3-4 times was associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Therefore, COVID-19 requires assessment of the severity of the disease for further tactics of thromboprophylaxis. The need for continued thromboprophylaxis, or therapeutic anticoagulation, in patients after inpatient treatment for two weeks using imaging techniques to assess of thrombosis assessment.

According to current guidelines, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) should be used at least 3 weeks before planned electrical cardioversion. In accordance with international atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is a pre-procedural examination recommended as an alternative to adequate oral anticoagulation. The strategy related to qualifying patients treated with NOACs for pre-procedural TEE differs in individual centers. Therefore, it is necessary to create an algorithm that will standardize estimation of left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) prevalence risk and thereby qualify NOAC-treated patients to TEE in the most effective way. We assessed the available studies on LAAT predictors. Risk factors for LAAT formation are not necessarily the same as the risk factors for thromboembolic events in patients with AF. The main risk factor for LAAT are as follows: previous intracardiac thrombus, irregular use of NOAC, inappropriate dose reduction of NOAC, previous stroke, CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 3 points, glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m², reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, or left atrial enlargement. Based on available evidence, we proposed algorithm guarantees more systematic approach to performing TEE in patients undergoing electrical cardioversion.

Background: According to the guidelines of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) conducted by bystanders, two methods of CPR are feasible: standard CPR (sCPR) with mouth-to-mouth ventilations and continuous chest compression-only CPR (CCC) without rescue breathing. The goal herein, was to evaluate the effect of sCPR (30:2) and CCC on resuscitation outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients.

Methods: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis. Using standardized criteria, Pub- Med, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration were searched for trials assessing the effect of sCPR vs. CCC on resuscitation outcomes after adult OHCA. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the mean deviation (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results: Overall, 3 randomized controlled trials and 12 non-randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. Survival to hospital discharge with sCPR was 10.2% compared to 9.3% in the CCC group (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93-1.16; p = 0.46). Survival to hospital discharge with good neurological outcome measured with the cerebral performance category (CPC 1 or 2) was 6.5% for sCPR vs. 5.8% for CCC (OR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84-1.20; p = 0.98). Prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in sCPR and CCC groups was 15.9% and 14.8%, respectively (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.91-1.39; p = 0.26). Survival to hospital admission with ROSC occurred in 29.5% of the sCPR group compared to 28.4% in CCC group (OR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89-1.63; p = 0.24).

Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that there were no significant differences in the resuscitation outcomes between the use of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and chest compression only.

Background: Investigating the prognostic value of the Murray law-based quantitative flow ratio (μQFR) on the clinical outcome after treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) with a drug-coated balloon (DCB).

Methods: Patients participating in a previous randomized clinical trial for DCB-ISR were post-hoc analyzed. The primary endpoint was vessel-oriented composite endpoint (VOCE), defined as cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization. μQFRs at baseline and after DCB angioplasty was calculated, and its prognostic value as a predictor of VOCE was explored in Cox regression.

Results: A total of 169 lesions in 169 patients were analyzed. At 1-year follow-up, 20 VOCEs occurred in 20 patients. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis identified a post-procedural μQFR of ≤ 0.89 as the best cut-off to predict VOCE (area under curve [AUC]: 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.80; p < 0.001), superior to post-procedural in-stent percent diameter stenosis, which reported an AUC of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.53-0.68; p = 0.18). Post-procedural μQFR was significantly lower in patients with VOCE compared with those without (0.88 [interquartile range: 0.79-0.94] vs. 0.96 [interquartile range: 0.91-0.98], respectively; p < 0.001). After correction for potential confounders, post-procedural μQFR ≤ 0.89 was associated with a 6-fold higher risk of VOCE than lesions with μQFR > 0.89 (hazard ratio: 5.94; 95% CI: 2.33-15.09; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Post-procedural μQFR may become a promising predictor of clinical outcome after treatment of DES-ISR lesions by DCB angioplasty.

Background: A subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has become a recognized alternative to a traditional transvenous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (T-ICD). Despite the growing evidence of non-inferiority of S-ICD, there are no clear clinical guidelines for selection of either of the two available systems. The aim of the study was to analyze the decisions made in predefined typical clinical scenarios by Polish cardiologists experienced in the use of both S-ICDs and T-ICDs.

Methods: A group of 30 experts of cardiac electrotherapy experienced in the use of S-ICDs was recruited and invited to participate in a web-based anonymous survey. The survey questions regarded the proposed therapy in various but typical clinical scenarios.

Results: From the invited 30 experts representing 18 clinical centers, 25 completed the survey. 72% of them declared that the number of S-ICDs implanted at their center during the preceding 12 months exceeded 10, and 40% - that it was over 20. Rates of responders preferring S-ICD or T-ICD in various clinical scenarios are reported and discussed in detail.

Conclusions: Significant divergence of opinion exists among Polish experts regarding the use of a subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator. It is especially pronounced on the issue of the use of the system in middle-age patients, in case of complications of the hitherto ICD therapy, or the need of upgrading the existing cardiac implantable electronic device.