The use of optical coherence tomography (OCT) in PCI guidance is limited perhaps by the lack of adequately powered studies which compare its efficacy and outcomes to the other more popular imaging modalities. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes following OCT-guided PCI with the other imaging modalities in two separate comparisons. We abstracted data from randomized control trials and observational comparative studies focusing on OCT versus either angiography- or IVUS-guided PCI outcomes identified following a systematic search (April 2006 and May 2017). This meta-analysis included a total of 2781 patients; OCT-guidance versus Angiography guidance (n = 1753) and OCT-guidance versus IVUS-guidance (n = 1028). Pooled estimates of outcomes, presented as odds ratios (OR) [95% confidence intervals], were generated with random-effect models. OCT guidance showed lower rates of MACE (OR 0.70 [0.49, 1.00] p = 0.05) and cardiac deaths (OR 0.40 [0.18, 0.90] p = 0.03) compared to Angiography-guidance alone but no statistical significant results for myocardial infarction (OR 0.70 [0.42, 1.16] p = 0.17), stent thrombosis (OR 1.17 [0.40, 3.43] p = 0.77) and target lesion revascularizations (OR 1.07 [0.48, 2.38] p = 0.86).No statistical significance was observed in the OCT versus IVUS comparison; MACE (OR 0.89 [0.46, 1.73] p = 0.73), cardiac deaths (OR 0.56 [0.12, 2.70] p = 0.47), MI (OR 0.56 [0.12, 2.70] p = 0.47), ST (OR 0.43 [0.06, 2.95] p = 0.39), and TLR(OR 0.99 [0.45, 2.18] p = 0.99). OCT-guided PCI in comparison with angiography-guided was associated with reduction in adverse events for the composite of cardiac deaths, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularizations. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes observed in the comparison between OCT- and IVUS-guidance.

No abstract

No abstract

Current guidelines recommend that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be restricted to the culprit vessel in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD) and without cardiogenic shock. However, newer data suggests that performing complete revascularization (CR) in MVD patients may lead to better outcomes compared to intervention in the culprit vessel only. The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the available data to determine if CR (using either angio- or fractional flow reserve guidance-FFR) following primary PCI in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock impacts clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed by conducting a literature search of PubMed from January 2004 to July 2017. Pooled estimates of outcomes, presented as odds ratios (OR) [95% confidence intervals], were generated using random-effect models. A total of 9 studies (3317 patients) were included. CR showed a significant MACE reduction (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.66, p < 0.001); All-cause mortality (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.98, p = 0.04) and repeat revascularization (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28-0.51, p < 0.001) at ≥ 12 months follow-up. The FFR-guiding CR group presented a MACE reduction (odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.90, p = 0.02) due to a decrease of repeat revascularization (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.80, p = 0.009). Overall, performing complete revascularization in STEMI patients showed a MACE reduction, all-cause death and repeat revascularization. Compared to culprit-only revascularization, treating multi-vessel disease in STEMI patients using FFR guidance is associated with decreased incidence of MACE, due to a decreased rate of revascularization.

To combat morbidity and mortality from the worldwide epidemic of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the United States Congress implemented a President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 30 resource-limited countries to integrate combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) for both prevention and cure. Over 35% of eligible persons have been successfully treated. Initial legislation cited palliative care as an essential aspect of this plan but overall health strengthening became critical to sustainability of programming and funding priorities shifted to assure staffing for care delivery sites; laboratory and pharmaceutical infrastructure; data collection and reporting; and financial management as individual countries are being encouraged to assume control of in-country funding. Given infrastructure requisites, individual care delivery beyond ART management alone has received minimal funding yet care remains necessary for durable viral suppression and overall quality of life for individuals. Technical assistance staff of one implementing partner representing seven African countries met to clarify domains of palliative care compared with the substituted term "care and support" to understand potential gaps in on-going HIV care. They prioritized care needs as: 1) mental health (depression and other mood disorders); 2) communication skills (age-appropriate disclosure of HIV status); 3) support of care-providers (stress management for sustainability of a skilled HIV workforce); 4) Tied Priorities: symptom management in opportunistic infections; end-of-life care; spiritual history-taking; and 5) Tied Priorities: attention to grief-related needs of patients, their families and staff; and management of HIV co-morbidities. This process can inform health policy as funding transitions to new priorities.