Michiaki Higashitani

Differences in hemodynamic responses between intravenous carperitide and nicorandil in patients with acute heart failure syndromes

While recent guidelines for the treatment of acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) recommend pharmacotherapy with vasodilators in patients without excessively low blood pressure (BP), few reports have compared the relative efficiency of vasodilators on hemodynamics in AHFS patients. The present study aimed to assess the differences in hemodynamic responses between intravenous carperitide and nicorandil in patients with AHFS. Thirty-eight consecutive patients were assigned to receive 48-h continuous infusion of carperitide (n = 19; 0.0125–0.05 μg/kg/min) or nicorandil (n = 19; 0.05–0.2 mg/kg/h). Hemodynamic parameters were estimated at baseline, and 2, 24, and 48 h after drug administration using echocardiography. After 48 h of infusion, systolic BP was significantly more decreased in the carperitide group compared with that in the nicorandil group (22.1 ± 20.0 % vs 5.3 ± 10.4 %, P = 0.003). While both carperitide and nicorandil significantly improved hemodynamic parameters, improvement of estimated pulmonary capillary wedge pressure was greater in the carperitide group (38.2 ± 14.5 % vs 26.5 ± 18.3 %, P = 0.036), and improvement of estimated cardiac output was superior in the nicorandil group (52.1 ± 33.5 % vs 11.4 ± 36.9 %, P = 0.001). Urine output for 48 h was greater in the carperitide group, but not to a statistically significant degree (4203 ± 1542 vs 3627 ± 1074 ml, P = 0.189). Carperitide and nicorandil were differentially effective in improving hemodynamics in AHFS patients. This knowledge may enable physicians in emergency wards to treat and manage patients with AHFS more effectively and safely.

Impact of Acute Kidney Injury on Early to Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Surgery for Type A Acute Aortic Dissection.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is relatively common after cardiothoracic surgery for type A acute aortic dissection (TA-AAD) and increases mortality. We investigated the incidence and risk factors for AKI in patients with TA-AAD and its impact on their outcomes. The records of 375 consecutive patients who underwent surgical treatment for TA-AAD from October 2007 to March 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. We defined AKI using the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria, which are based on serum creatinine concentration or glomerular filtration rate. We used Kaplan-Meier methods and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the impact of AKI on both mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. We also examined the association between risk factors and AKI using logistic regression modeling. Postoperative AKI was observed in 165 patients (44.0%). The overall 30-day and mid- to long-term mortality was 1.6% and 8.8%, respectively. Mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events correlated significantly with the severity of AKI, and multivariate analysis showed that AKI stage 3 (the most sever stage) was an independent risk factor for mortality (hazard ratio 6.83, 95% confidence interval 2.52 to 18.52) after adjustment for important confounding factors. Extracorporeal circulation time, body mass index, perioperative peak serum C-reactive protein concentration, renal malperfusion, and perioperative sepsis were found to be risk factors for AKI. In conclusion, AKI was common in patients who underwent surgery for type A acute aortic dissection. The severity of AKI strongly influences patient outcomes, so it should be recognized promptly and treated aggressively when possible.

Efficacy and Safety of Endovascular Therapy for Aortoiliac TASC D Lesions

Background: Although there is increasing evidence of the effectiveness of endovascular therapy for complex aortoiliac (AI) occlusive disease, it is not universally applied to TASC D lesions. Methods: A total of 2096 patients, 2601 limbs with AI occlusive disease, were enrolled. The lesions were categorized as TASC D (395) or TASC A-C (2206), and we compared baseline data, procedure, and follow-up result between the 2 groups. Results: The success rate of the procedure was significantly lower in the TASC D group (91.6% vs 99.3%, P < .01), and more procedure complications occurred in the TASC D group (11.1% vs 5.2%, P < .01). The results of a 5-year follow-up revealed no significant difference in primary patency (77.9% vs 77.1%, P = .17) and major adverse cardiovascular and limb events (MACLE; 30.5% vs 33.4%, P = .42) between the 2 groups. A multivariate analysis revealed complications and critical limb ischemia are independent predictors of MACLE in the TASC D group. Conclusion: The success rate of the procedure was lower in the TASC D group. Complications were more frequent in the TASC D group, and they were related to MACLE.

Efficacy of the S.M.A.R.T. Control vs. Other Stents for Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease in Contemporary Clinical Practice

Purpose To compare the safety and efficacy of the S.M.A.R.T. Control stent vs. other stents in patients with symptomatic aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD) followed for up to 4 years. Methods A subgroup analysis of data from a retrospective multicenter registry examined 2036 symptomatic patients (1659 men; mean age 71±8 years) who received stent-supported endovascular therapy for 2541 AIOD lesions between April 2005 and December 2009. The cohort was divided into the S.M.A.R.T. stent group (955 patients/1196 lesions) and the “other” stent group (1081 patients/1345 lesions). The main study outcomes of primary patency and event-free survival at 4 years were compared before and after propensity matching analysis. The rates for freedom from major amputation, surgical conversion, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse limb events were also assessed. Results The S.M.A.R.T. Control stent group had greater frequency of critical limb ischemia (CLI), TASC C/D lesions, and chronic total occlusions. The mean follow-up was 25±17 months in the S.M.A.R.T. group vs. 29±19 months in the other stent group. After propensity matching, 4-year primary patency (86% vs. 76%, p<0.001) and freedom from adverse limb events (93% vs. 90%, p=0.04) were greater in the S.M.A.R.T. Control stent group, while event-free survival rates (75% vs. 77%, p=0.50) were similar between groups. Univariate subgroup analysis showed that use of the S.M.A.R.T. stent was associated with greater primary patency in patients with renal insufficiency (serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL) and CLI. Conclusion After propensity matching analysis, the durability of the S.M.A.R.T. stent was superior to that of other stents, which might reflect differing design characteristics.