Although TH appears to be safe in patients with STEMI, meta-analysis of published RCTs indicates that benefit is limited to reduction of infarct size in patients with anterior wall involvement with no demonstrable effect on all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction or HF/PO.

No abstract

Both catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis (USAT) are novel treatment modalities for patients presenting with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The objective of this study was to compare clinical and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes for patients undergoing either treatment modality. We retrospectively studied 70 consecutive patients treated with either CDT or USAT over 3 years at a multicenter health system. The primary clinical efficacy endpoint was right ventricular systolic pressure (RVSP) reduction post-procedurally. Safety endpoints were mortality and bleeding incidents based on Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Arteries (GUSTO) criteria. Long-term QOL was assessed using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) via phone interview. Thirty-seven patients (53%) in our study underwent USAT and 33 (47%) patients were treated with conventional CDT. Among all patients studied, 96% had echocardiographic evidence for right ventricular strain on admission. Mean RVSP decreased by 18 ± 13 mmHg in the USAT group post-procedurally as compared to 14 ± 16 mmHg in the CDT group, without significant difference between groups (p = 0.31). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were largely identical between USAT and CDT groups (USAT: 3%; CDT: 0%; p = 0.09). There was no death in either group during admission. At long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in QOL between both treatment modalities in all eight functional domains of SF-36. Our retrospective study demonstrated using USAT over conventional CDT for acute submassive or massive PE did not yield additional clinical, safety, or long-term QOL benefit.

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the Evolut PRO to the Evolut R valve in a real-world setting. Background. The next-generation self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) system, the CoreValve Evolut PRO was designed with an outer pericardial skirt to improve valve-sealing performance. Safety and efficacy of this valve have not previously been compared to its predecessor, the Evolut R valve. Methods. We retrospectively studied 134 patients who underwent TAVR with the Evolut PRO or Evolut R valve over one year at a tertiary center. Endpoints, defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria, included device success, paravalvular leak (PVL), and a composite safety endpoint including mortality, stroke, major vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, coronary artery obstruction, and repeat procedure for valve-related dysfunction. Results. 60 Evolut PRO and 56 Evolut R patients met the study criteria. Both groups had similar device success rates (90 vs. 89%, p=0.44). Incidence of moderate PVL was similar on discharge (5 vs. 11%, p=0.68) and at 30 days (11 vs. 13%, p=0.79), with nil incidence of severe PVL. There were no mortalities, and the VARC-2 safety endpoint at 30 days was comparable. Conclusion. Despite the additional pericardial skirt and larger sheath size of Evolut PRO, outcomes were comparable between the two Evolut systems, supporting adoption of the newest generation valve in the management of severe aortic stenosis as well as continued use of the Evolut R in patients with smaller vasculature warranting a lower profile device.