ObjectivesThe effect of weekend versus weekday admission following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) on process of care and mortality remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the ‘weekend-effect’ on outcomes using a multicentre dataset of patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina (NSTEMI/UA).DesignThis retrospective observational study used propensity score (PS) stratification to adjust estimates of weekend effect for observed confounding. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes and time-to-event endpoints were modelled using Cox proportional hazards to estimate hazard ratios (HRs).SettingThree tertiary cardiac centres in England and Wales that contribute to the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project.ParticipantsBetween January 2010 and March 2016, 17 705 admissions met the study inclusion criteria, 4327 of which were at a weekend.Primary and secondary outcomesAssociations were studied between weekend admissions and the following primary outcome measures: in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality and long-term survival; secondary outcomes included several processes of care indicators, such as time to coronary angiography.ResultsAfter PS stratification adjustment, mortality outcomes were similar between weekend and weekday admission across patients with STEMI and NSTEMI/UA. Weekend admissions were less likely to be discharged within 1 day (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78), but after 4 days the length of stay was similar (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04). Fewer patients with NSTEMI/UA received angiography between 0 and 24 hours at a weekend (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.77). Weekend patients with STEMI were less likely to undergo an angiogram within 1 hour, but there was no significant difference after this time point.ConclusionPatients with ACS had similar mortality and processes of care when admitted on a weekend compared with a weekday. There was evidence of a delay to angiography for patients with NSTEMI/UA admitted at the weekend.

Background Uncomplicated Stanford Type B aortic dissection (un‐TBAD) is characterized by a tear in the aorta distal to the left subclavian artery without ascending aorta and arch involvement. Optimized cardiovascular control (blood pressure and heart rate) is the current gold standard treatment according to current international guidelines. However, emerging evidence indicates that thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is both safe and effective in the treatment of un‐TBAD with improved long‐term survival outcomes in combination with optimal medical therapy (OMT) relative to OMT alone. However, the optimal timeframe for intervention is not entirely clarified. Aims This review critically addresses current state‐of‐the‐art comparing TEVAR with OMT and corresponding clinical outcomes for un‐TBAD based on timing of intervention. Methods We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PUBMED and Scopus to collate all research evidence on timing of TEVAR in uncomplicated Type B aortic dissection. Results TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective treatment for un‐TBAD in combination with OMT through comparable survival outcomes, improved aortic remodeling, and relatively low periprocedural added risks. Though the timing of intervention remains controversial, it is becoming clear that performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of un‐TBAD yields better outcomes compared to earlier and delayed (>90 days) intervention. Conclusions Further research is required into both short‐ and long‐term outcomes of TEVAR in addition to its optimal therapeutic window for un‐TBAD. With stronger evidence, TEVAR is likely to be adopted as the gold‐standard intervention for un‐TBAD with definitive timeframe guidelines.

Background: The relationship between operator volume and survival after unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention (uLMS-PCI) is poorly defined. Methods: Data from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society national PCI database were analyzed for all uLMS-PCI procedures performed in England and Wales between 2012 and 2014 and 4 quartiles of annualized uLMS-PCI volume (Q1–Q4) generated. Individual logistic regressions were performed for 12-month mortality to quantify the independent association between operator quartile and outcomes. Results: In total, 6724 uLMS-PCI procedures were analyzed with a negatively skewed distribution and an annualized median of 3 procedures per year. Operator volume ranged from 1 to 54 uLMS-PCI procedures/year. Within Q1, 347 operators performed a median of 2 procedures/year (interquartile range, 1–3); in Q2, 134 operators performed a median of 5 procedures/year (interquartile range, 4–6); in Q3, 59 operators performed a mean of 10 procedures/year (interquartile range, 8–12); and in Q4, 29 operators performed a mean of 21 procedures/year (interquartile range, 17–29). Higher volume operators undertook uLMS-PCI in patients with greater comorbid burden and performed more complex procedures compared with lower operator volumes. Adjusted in-hospital survival (odds ratio, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.24–0.67]; P <0.001), in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (odds ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.27–0.62]; P <0.001), and 12-month survival (odds ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.39–0.73]; P <0.001) were lower in Q4 operators compared with Q1 operators. A close association between operator volume/case and superior 12-month survival was observed ( P <0.001). The lower volume threshold of minimum operator uLMS-PCI volume associated with improved survival was ≥16 cases/year. Conclusions: These data suggest that operator volume is an important factor in determining outcome after uLMS-PCI.

Although randomized trial data suggest that complete revascularization improves outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the impact of differing revascularization strategies in octogenarians is not well defined. We performed a retrospective analysis, which was conducted of 9,628 consecutive patients who underwent PCI at a large UK center. Octogenarians were more likely to have significant co-morbidity, a higher Mehran bleed risk score (24.5 ± 6.8 vs 13.3 ± 7.4, p <0.0001), and more complex disease (baseline SYNTAX score 18.7 ± 11.0 vs 13.1 ± 8.9, p = 0.002) than younger patients. During PCI, octogenarians were more likely to undergo left main or proximal LAD intervention, but despite this, significantly less likely to receive drug-eluting stents (66.5% vs 80.1%, p <0.001). Postprocedurally, octogenarians had greater residual disease burden (residual SYNTAX score 10.1 ± 8.7 vs 1.6 ± 3.3, p <0.0001). At 12 months, adverse outcomes (definite stent thrombosis 3.3% vs 1.1%, p <0.001, clinically driven in-stent restenosis PCI 3.7% vs 2.6%, p = 0.005, and 12-month mortality 12.8% vs 4.2%, p <0.0001) were all more frequent in octogenarians. Although age, shock, diabetes, and BMS use were independently predictive of increased 12-month mortality, incomplete revascularization was not. In conclusion, octogenarians are a complex group to treat balancing high-risk bleeding profile and complex coronary disease. However, in multivariate analysis, incomplete revascularization was not independently predictive of adverse outcomes. These data support a conservative target lesion-only DES-driven revascularization strategy.

No abstract

These findings suggest that the superficial peroneal nerve is at significant risk during percutaneous screw placement in holes 11 through 13 of the 13-hole proximal tibia Less Invasive Stabilization System plate. Use of a larger incision and careful dissection down to the plate in this region may minimize the risk of damage to the nerve.

Although standard treatment of 20 mg TAM daily offers no apparent protection against bone fracture in older nursing home residents, a daily 10 mg dose seems to be protective.

Background Uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (un‐TBAD) has been managed conservatively with medical therapy to control the heart rate and blood pressure to limit disease progression, in addition to radiological follow‐up. However, several trials and observational studies have investigated the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in un‐TBAD and suggested that TEVAR provides a survival benefit over medical therapy. Outcomes of TEVAR have also been linked with the timing of intervention. Aims The scope of this review is to collate and summarize all the evidence in the literature on the mid‐ and long‐term outcomes of TEVAR in un‐TBAD, confirming its superiority. We also aimed to investigate the relationship between the timing of TEVAR intervention and results. Methods We carried out a comprehensive literature search on multiple electronic databases including PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE to collate and summarize all research evidence on the mid‐ and long‐term outcomes of TEVAR in un‐TBAD, as well as its relationship with intervention timing. Results TEVAR has proven to be a safe and effective tool in un‐TBAD, offering superior mid‐ and long‐term outcomes including all‐cause and aorta‐related mortality, aortic‐specific adverse events, aortic remodeling, and need for reintervention. Additionally, performing TEVAR during the subacute phase of dissection seems to yield optimal results. Conclusion The evidence demonstrating a survival advantage in favor TEVAR over medical therapy in un‐TBAD means that with further research, particular trials and observational studies, TEVAR could become the gold‐standard treatment option for un‐TBAD patients.