Ruben Kandov

Biodegradable polymer stents vs second generation drug eluting stents: A meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials

AIM To evaluate the premise, that biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents (BD-DES) could improve clinical outcomes compared to second generation permanent polymer drug eluting stents (PP-DES), we pooled the data from all the available randomized control trials (RCT) comparing the clinical performance of both these stents. METHODS A systematic literature search of PubMed, Cochrane, Google scholar databases, EMBASE, MEDLINE and SCOPUS was performed during time period of January 2001 to April 2015 for RCT and comparing safety and efficacy of BD-DES vs second generation PP-DES. The primary outcomes of interest were definite stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, cardiac deaths and total deaths during the study period. RESULTS A total of 11 RCTs with a total of 12644 patients were included in the meta-analysis, with 6598 patients in BD-DES vs 6046 patients in second generation PP-DES. The mean follow up period was 16 mo. Pooled analysis showed non-inferiority of BD-DES, comparing events of stent thrombosis (OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.79-2.52, P = 0.24), target lesion revascularization (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.84-1.17, P = 0.92), myocardial infarction (OR = 1.06, 95%CI: 0.86-1.29, P = 0.92), cardiac deaths (OR = 1.07, 95%CI 0.82-1.41, P = 0.94) and total deaths (OR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.80-1.17, P = 0.71). CONCLUSION BD-DES, when compared to second generation PP-DES, showed no significant advantage and the outcomes were comparable between both the groups.

Contrast media use in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing coronary angiography: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing coronary angiography (CA), adequate hydration and minimizing volume of contrast media (CM) are class 1b recommendations for preventing contrast induced nephropathy (CIN). Current data are insufficient to justify specific recommendations about isoosmolar vs. low-osmolar contrast media by the ACCF/AHA/SCAI guidelines. METHODS Randomized trials comparing IOCM to LOCM in CKD stage 3 and above patients undergoing CA, and reporting incidence of CIN (defined by a rise in creatinine of 25% from baseline) were included in the analysis. The secondary outcome of the study was the incidence of serum creatinine increase by >1mg/dl. RESULTS A total of 2839 patients were included in 10 trials, in which 1430 patients received IOCM and 1393 received LOCM. When compared to LOCM, IOCM was not associated with significant benefit in preventing CIN (OR=0.72, [CI: 0.50-1.04], P=0.08, I2=59%). Subgroup analysis revealed non-significant difference in incidence of CIN based on baseline use of N-acetylcystine (NAC), diabetes status, ejection fraction, and whether percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary angiography alone was performed. The difference between IOCM and LOCM was further attenuated when restricted to studies with larger sample size (>250 patients) (OR=0.93; [CI: 0.66-1.30]) or when compared with non-ionic LOCM (OR=0.79, [CI: 0.52-1.21]). CONCLUSION In patients with CKD stage 3 and above undergoing coronary angiography, use of IOCM showed overall non-significant difference in incidence of CIN compared to LOCM. The difference was further attenuated when IOCM was compared with non-ionic LOCM.

Utilization of the Impella for hemodynamic support during percutaneous intervention and cardiogenic shock: an insight

ABSTRACT Introduction: Impella is a catheter-based micro-axial flow pump placed across the aortic valve, and it is currently the only percutaneous left ventricular assist device approved for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention and cardiogenic shock. Areas Covered: Even though several studies have repeatedly demonstrated the excellent hemodynamic profile of Impella in high-risk settings, it remains underutilized. Here we aim to provide an up-to-date summary of the available literature on Impellas use in High risk settings as well as the practical aspects of its usage. Expert Commentary: Percutaneous coronary interventions in high rsk settings have always been challenging for a physician. Impella 2.5 and CP, have been proven safe, cost effective and feasible in High Risk Percutaneous coronary Interventions with an excellent hemodynamic profile.

Acute Myocarditis in a Patient Using Testosterone Diagnosed by Cardiac MRI

Bhavi Pandya1*, Adarsh Vennepureddy1, Neeraj Shah1, Deepak Asti2, Nikhil Nalluri1 and Ruben Kandov2 1Department of Internal Medicine, Staten Island University Hospital, NY, USA 2Department of Cardiology, Staten Island University Hospital, NY, USA *Corresponding author: Bhavi Pandya, MBBS, Department of Internal medicine, Staten Island University Hospital, 475 Seaview Avenue, Staten Island, NY 10305, USA, Tel: +1 9099643904; E-mail: dr.bhavipandya@gmail.com

Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-Surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Bioprosthetic (BP) valves have been increasingly used for aortic valve replacement over the last decade. Due to their limited durability, patients presenting with failed BP valves are rising. Valve in Valve - Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (ViV-TAVI) emerged as an alternative to the gold standard redo-Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (redo-SAVR). However, the utility of ViV-TAVI is poorly understood. METHODS A systematic electronic search of the scientific literature was done in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only studies which compared the safety and efficacy of ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR head to head in failed BP valves were included. RESULTS Six observational studies were eligible and included 594 patients, of whom 255 underwent ViV- TAVI and 339 underwent redo-SAVR. There was no significant difference between ViV-TAVI and redo- SAVR for procedural, 30 day and 1 year mortality rates. ViV-TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (OR: 0.43, CI: 0.21-0.89; P = 0.02) and a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) (OR: 5.45, CI: 0.94-31.58; P = 0.06). There was no significant difference for stroke, major bleeding, vascular complications and postprocedural aortic valvular gradients more than 20 mm-hg. CONCLUSION Our results reiterate the safety and feasibility of ViV-TAVI for failed aortic BP valves in patients deemed to be at high risk for surgery. VIV-TAVI was associated with lower risk of permanent pacemaker implantation with a trend toward increased risk of paravalvular leak.

Propensity matched comparison of in-hospital outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in patients with previous history of CABG: Insights from the Nationwide inpatient sample

The incidence of patients with previous history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) presenting for aortic valvular replacement has been consistently on the rise. Repeat sternotomy for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) carries an inherent risk of morbidity and mortality when compared to Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

NATIONAL TRENDS OF PCI AND CONCURRENT MORTALITY IN PATIENTS ≥75 YEARS AGE HOSPITALIZED DUE TO ACUTE MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION

The national epidemiology and temporal trends of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and concurrent mortality in patients ≥75 years hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unknown. We sought to characterize the trend and outcome of this life saving procedure in this population