ObjectiveTo know the predictors of a successful outcome of percutaneous transvenous mitral commissurotomy (PTMC) other than described in the Wilkins scoring system.MethodsTwo hundred fifty-eight consecutive patients were enrolled for this observational study in a tertiary care heart center of Pakistan who had a Wilkins score of ≤8. Patients with more than mild mitral regurgitation (MR) or having a clot in the left atrium were excluded. The Bonhoeffer multi-track system was used as a default technique. Successful PTMC was defined as achieving a mitral valve area (MVA) of ≥1.5 cm2 with no more than mild MR.ResultsOut of 258 PTMC procedures, 197 were successful. The Bonhoeffer multi-track system was used in ~94% cases. Among unsuccessful procedures, 41 patients did not achieve the required valve area, and 21 patients developed more than mild MR, including those 8 patients who did not achieve the required valve area and had more than mild MR. Bigger mean annulus size (33.5±2.6 versus 32.8±2.1 mm; p=0.02) and pre-procedure MVA (0.93±0.1 versus 0.87±0.1 cm2; p=0.002) had a significant effect on successful PTMC. Lower mean preprocedure systolic right ventricular pressure on echo (65.4±19.4 versus 75.3±18 mm Hg; p=0.000) and on cath (74±21.5 versus 81.5±24.6 mm Hg; p=0.002), lower grade of left ventricular dysfunction (p=0.04), and tricuspid regurgitation on echo (p=0.003) also had positive effects on the outcome.ConclusionBigger preprocedure mitral valve annulus size and mitral valve area, and better left and right ventricular hemodynamics are correlated with successful PTMC.
Background:
Intracoronary epinephrine has been effectively used in treating refractory no-reflow, but there is a dearth of data on its use as a first-line drug in normotensive patients in comparison to the widely used adenosine.
Methods:
In this open-labeled randomized clinical trial, 201 patients with no-reflow were randomized 1:1 into intracoronary epinephrine as the treatment group and intracoronary adenosine as the control group and followed for 1 month. The primary end points were improvement in coronary flow, as assessed by TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) flow, frame counts, and myocardial blush. Secondary end points were in-hospital and short-term mortality and major adverse cardiac events.
Results:
In all, 101 patients received intracoronary epinephrine and 100 patients received adenosine. Epinephrine was generally well tolerated with no immediate table death or ventricular fibrillation. No-reflow was more effectively improved with epinephrine with final TIMI III flow (90.1% versus 78%,
P
=0.019) and final corrected TIMI frame count (24±8.43 versus 26.63±9.22,
P
=0.036). However, no significant difference was observed in final grade III myocardial blush (55.4% versus 45%,
P
=0.139), mean reduction of corrected TIMI frame count (−25.71±11.79 versus −26.08±11.71,
P
=0.825), in-hospital and short-term mortality, and major adverse cardiac events.
Conclusions:
Epinephrine is relatively safe to use in no-reflow in normotensive patients. A significantly higher frequency of post-treatment TIMI III flow grade and lower final corrected TIMI frame count with relatively better achievement of myocardial blush grade III translate into it displaying relatively better efficacy than adenosine.
REGISTRATION:
URL:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov
; Unique identifier: NCT04699110.
Background
This study was conducted with the aim of providing a quantitative appraisal of clinical outcomes of trans-radial access for primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with ST-segment evaluation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
Methods
In this study, we compared two propensity-matched cohorts of patients who underwent primary PCI via trans-radial (TRA) and trans-femoral access (TFA) in a 1:1 ratio. The profile of two cohorts was matched for gender, age, and body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, family history, and smoking. The outcomes of primary PCI were compared for the two cohorts which included all-cause in-hospital mortality, heart failure, re-infarction, cardiogenic shock, bleeding, transfusion, cerebrovascular accident, and dialysis.
Results
This analysis was performed on a total of 2316 patients with 1158 patients each in the TRA and TFA group. We observed significantly lower rates of mortality, 0.8% (9) vs. 3.5% (41);
p
< 0.001 and bleeding, 0.5% (6) vs.1.6% (19);
p
= 0.009 with shorter hospital stay, 1.61 ± 1.39 vs. 1.98 ± 1.5 days, in trans-radial vs. trans-femoral. However, both fluoroscopic time and contrast volume were significantly higher in the TRA as compared to TFA group 15.57 ± 8.16 vs. 12.79 ± 7.82 min;
p
< 0.001 and 143.22 ± 45.33 vs. 133.78 ± 45.97;
p
< 0.001 respectively.
Conclusions
Compared with TFA access, TRA for primary PCI is safe for patients with STEMI, it was found to be associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality and bleeding complications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.