No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: To study the impact of injection of verapamil and adenosine in the coronary arteries on TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) frame count (TFC) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Prospective, randomised, controlled study of the intracoronary administration of normal saline versus verapamil versus adenosine in patients undergoing PCI in the setting of an ACS, even when flow is visually established to be normal or near normal. Patients were randomised to receive verapamil (n = 49), adenosine (n = 51) or normal saline (n = 50) after PCI. Quantitative angiography, TIMI flow grade (TFG), TFC and myocardial blush grade were assessed before PCI, after PCI and after drugs were given. Wall motion index (WMI) was measured at days 1 and 30. Results: 9 patients in the verapamil group developed transient heart block, not seen with adenosine (p ( 0.001). Compared with saline, coronary flow measured by TFC improved significantly and WMI improved slightly but insignificantly in both the verapamil (TFC: p = 0.02; mean difference in improvement in WMI: 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.015 to 0.17, p = 0.02) and the adenosine groups (TFC: p = 0.002; mean difference in improvement in WMI: 0.08, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.16, p = 0.04). The improvements in TFC and WMI did not differ significantly between the verapamil and the adenosine groups (TFC: p = 0.2; mean difference in improvement in WMI: 0.01, 95% CI 20.055 to 0.08, p = 0.7, respectively). Conclusion: Administration of verapamil or adenosine significantly improves coronary flow and WMI after PCI in the setting of an ACS. Flow and WMI did not differ significantly between verapamil and adenosine but verapamil was associated with the development of transient heart block.

The combined experience from randomized trials suggests that the use of anti-embolic devices does not decrease early mortality or reinfarction during PCI for native vessel AMI. Whether their use improves longer term outcomes is unknown. Further research is needed to clarify the indication and optimal devices for anti-embolic protection.

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether patients requiring tricuspid replacement should have a mechanical or a biological valve. Using the reported search, 561 papers were identified. Thirteen papers represented the best evidence on the subject. The author, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, weaknesses, results and study comments were tabulated. We conclude that there are no major differences between the insertion of a mechanical or biological tricuspid valve. Aggregating the available data it is found that the reoperation rate is similar with bioprosthetic degeneration rate being equivalent to the mechanical thrombosis rate. Conversely up to 95% of patients with a bioprosthesis still receive anticoagulation. Survival in over 1000 prostheses pooled by meta-analysis was equivalent between biological and mechanical valves.