William R. Davies

Remote Ischemic Preconditioning Improves Outcome at 6 Years After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention The CRISP Stent Trial Long-term Follow-up

Background—Postprocedural myocardial infarction (type 4a) has been shown to be an adverse prognostic indicator after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The Cardiac Remote Ischemic Preconditioning in Coronary Stenting (CRISP Stent) study demonstrated that remote ischemic preconditioning reduced procedural symptoms, ECG ST-segment deviation, and cardiac troponin I release after elective PCI and reduced the major adverse cardiac and cerebral event (MACCE) rate at 6 months. We were interested to confirm if this early benefit in MACCE rate in the remote ischemic preconditioning group was sustained long-term. Methods and Results—Patients were telephoned by researchers blinded to the randomization details. MACCE, defined as all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, transient ischemic attack or stroke, and heart failure requiring hospital admission, were adjudicated by case note and national database review. One hundred ninety-two (89.3%) of the 225 patients with elective PCI randomized in the original study were available for long-term follow-up (mean time to event or last follow-up: 1579.7±603.6 days). There were a total of 59 (30.7%) MACCEs. Patients with an MACCE had a higher mean cardiac troponin I after PCI (±SD): 2.07±6.99 versus 0.91±2.07 ng/mL (P=0.05). The MACCE rate at 6 years remained lower in the remote ischemic preconditioning group (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.35–0.97; P=0.039; absolute risk reduction=0.13 and number needed to treat=8 to prevent the MACCE at 6 years). Conclusions—Remote ischemic preconditioning reduces the incidence of postprocedural cardiac troponin I after elective PCI and confers an MACCE-free survival benefit at both short- and long-term follow-up. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.ukcrn.org.uk. Unique identifier: UKCRN 4074

Percutaneous Device Closure of Paravalvular Leak: Combined Experience from the United Kingdom and Ireland

Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004–2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure ( P <0.001) and was none (33.3%), mild (41.4%), moderate (18.6%), or severe (6.7%) at last follow-up. Mean New York Heart Association class improved from 2.7±0.8 preprocedure to 1.6±0.8 ( P <0.001) after a median follow-up of 110 (7–452) days. Hospital mortality was 2.9% (elective), 6.8% (in-hospital urgent), and 50% (emergency) ( P <0.001). MACE during follow-up included death (16%), valve surgery (6%), late device embolization (0.4%), and new hemolysis requiring transfusion (1.6%). Mitral PVL was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; P =0.011). Factors independently associated with death were the degree of persisting leak (HR, 2.87; P =0.037), New York Heart Association class (HR, 2.00; P =0.015) at follow-up and baseline creatinine (HR, 8.19; P =0.001). The only factor independently associated with MACE was the degree of persisting leak at follow-up (HR, 3.01; P =0.002). Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of PVL is an effective procedure that improves PVL severity and symptoms. Severity of persisting leak at follow-up is independently associated with both MACE and death. Percutaneous closure should be considered as an alternative to repeat surgery. # Clinical Perspectives {#article-title-21}Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004–2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure (P<0.001) and was none (33.3%), mild (41.4%), moderate (18.6%), or severe (6.7%) at last follow-up. Mean New York Heart Association class improved from 2.7±0.8 preprocedure to 1.6±0.8 (P<0.001) after a median follow-up of 110 (7–452) days. Hospital mortality was 2.9% (elective), 6.8% (in-hospital urgent), and 50% (emergency) (P<0.001). MACE during follow-up included death (16%), valve surgery (6%), late device embolization (0.4%), and new hemolysis requiring transfusion (1.6%). Mitral PVL was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; P=0.011). Factors independently associated with death were the degree of persisting leak (HR, 2.87; P=0.037), New York Heart Association class (HR, 2.00; P=0.015) at follow-up and baseline creatinine (HR, 8.19; P=0.001). The only factor independently associated with MACE was the degree of persisting leak at follow-up (HR, 3.01; P=0.002). Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of PVL is an effective procedure that improves PVL severity and symptoms. Severity of persisting leak at follow-up is independently associated with both MACE and death. Percutaneous closure should be considered as an alternative to repeat surgery.

Stunning and Right Ventricular Dysfunction Is Induced by Coronary Balloon Occlusion and Rapid Pacing in Humans: Insights From Right Ventricular Conductance Catheter Studies

Background We sought to determine whether right ventricular stunning could be detected after supply (during coronary balloon occlusion [BO]) and supply/demand ischemia (induced by rapid pacing [RP] during transcatheter aortic valve replacement) in humans. Methods and Results Ten subjects with single‐vessel right coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with normal ventricular function were studied in the BO group. Ten subjects undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement were studied in the RP group. In both, a conductance catheter was placed into the right ventricle, and pressure volume loops were recorded at baseline and for intervals over 15 minutes after a low‐pressure BO for 1 minute or a cumulative duration of RP for up to 1 minute. Ischemia‐induced diastolic dysfunction was seen 1 minute after RP (end‐diastolic pressure [mm Hg]: 8.1±4.2 versus 12.1±4.1, P<0.001) and BO (end‐diastolic pressure [mm Hg]: 8.1±4.0 versus 8.7±4.0, P=0.03). Impairment of systolic and diastolic function after BO remained at 15‐minutes recovery (ejection fraction [%]: 55.7±9.0 versus 47.8±6.3, P<0.01; end‐diastolic pressure [mm Hg]: 8.1±4.0 versus 9.2±3.9, P<0.01). Persistent diastolic dysfunction was also evident in the RP group at 15‐minutes recovery (end‐diastolic pressure [mm Hg]: 8.1±4.1 versus 9.9±4.4, P=0.03) and there was also sustained impairment of load‐independent indices of systolic function at 15 minutes after RP (end‐systolic elastance and ventriculo‐arterial coupling [mm Hg/mL]: 1.25±0.31 versus 0.85±0.43, P<0.01). Conclusions RP and right coronary artery balloon occlusion both cause ischemic right ventricular dysfunction with stunning observed later during the procedure. This may have intraoperative implications in patients without right ventricular functional reserve.

12 Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: evaluation of patient outcomes and impact on icu resources

Background Recent European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend that Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PPCI) be considered in all patients resuscitated from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Methods We evaluated the impact of expanding PPCI provision on patient outcomes and ICU resources. Data on all patients admitted to a tertiary PPCI centre from 2010 to 2015 were analysed. Results 301 patients were admitted via the PPCI pathway following OHCA. The number of OHCA patients increased from 5.5% (n=38) of total admissions in 2010 to 8.4% (n=67) in 2015 (p=0.03). Mean number of comorbidities increased from 0.97 to 1.63 (p=0.03). 92% were diagnosed with myocardial infarction in 2010, compared to 60% in 2015 (p<0.001). More patients required ICU admission (13% in 2010 to 58% in 2015, p<0.001) and support for at least two organ systems (11% in 2010 to 48% in 2015, p<0.001). Rate of survival to discharge decreased from 100% to 81% (p=0.004) and proportion discharged home also decreased from 95% to 58% (p<0.001). Conclusions Over the study period, the number of OHCA patients admitted to our PPCI centre climbed yearly. They were increasingly likely to have more comorbidity and require more intense organ support. Despite this, outcomes were less favourable. Our findings highlight the need for careful expansion of indications for PPCI admission following OHCA to avoid unsuccessful demand on ICU resources. Abstract 12 Figure 1 Organ support and survival to hospital discharge

Percutaneous Device Closure of Paravalvular LeakClinical Perspectives: Combined Experience From the United Kingdom and Ireland

Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004–2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure ( P <0.001) and was none (33.3%), mild (41.4%), moderate (18.6%), or severe (6.7%) at last follow-up. Mean New York Heart Association class improved from 2.7±0.8 preprocedure to 1.6±0.8 ( P <0.001) after a median follow-up of 110 (7–452) days. Hospital mortality was 2.9% (elective), 6.8% (in-hospital urgent), and 50% (emergency) ( P <0.001). MACE during follow-up included death (16%), valve surgery (6%), late device embolization (0.4%), and new hemolysis requiring transfusion (1.6%). Mitral PVL was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; P =0.011). Factors independently associated with death were the degree of persisting leak (HR, 2.87; P =0.037), New York Heart Association class (HR, 2.00; P =0.015) at follow-up and baseline creatinine (HR, 8.19; P =0.001). The only factor independently associated with MACE was the degree of persisting leak at follow-up (HR, 3.01; P =0.002). Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of PVL is an effective procedure that improves PVL severity and symptoms. Severity of persisting leak at follow-up is independently associated with both MACE and death. Percutaneous closure should be considered as an alternative to repeat surgery. # Clinical Perspectives {#article-title-21}Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004–2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure (P<0.001) and was none (33.3%), mild (41.4%), moderate (18.6%), or severe (6.7%) at last follow-up. Mean New York Heart Association class improved from 2.7±0.8 preprocedure to 1.6±0.8 (P<0.001) after a median follow-up of 110 (7–452) days. Hospital mortality was 2.9% (elective), 6.8% (in-hospital urgent), and 50% (emergency) (P<0.001). MACE during follow-up included death (16%), valve surgery (6%), late device embolization (0.4%), and new hemolysis requiring transfusion (1.6%). Mitral PVL was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; P=0.011). Factors independently associated with death were the degree of persisting leak (HR, 2.87; P=0.037), New York Heart Association class (HR, 2.00; P=0.015) at follow-up and baseline creatinine (HR, 8.19; P=0.001). The only factor independently associated with MACE was the degree of persisting leak at follow-up (HR, 3.01; P=0.002). Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of PVL is an effective procedure that improves PVL severity and symptoms. Severity of persisting leak at follow-up is independently associated with both MACE and death. Percutaneous closure should be considered as an alternative to repeat surgery.

Percutaneous Device Closure of Paravalvular LeakClinical Perspectives

Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004–2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure ( P <0.001) and was none (33.3%), mild (41.4%), moderate (18.6%), or severe (6.7%) at last follow-up. Mean New York Heart Association class improved from 2.7±0.8 preprocedure to 1.6±0.8 ( P <0.001) after a median follow-up of 110 (7–452) days. Hospital mortality was 2.9% (elective), 6.8% (in-hospital urgent), and 50% (emergency) ( P <0.001). MACE during follow-up included death (16%), valve surgery (6%), late device embolization (0.4%), and new hemolysis requiring transfusion (1.6%). Mitral PVL was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; P =0.011). Factors independently associated with death were the degree of persisting leak (HR, 2.87; P =0.037), New York Heart Association class (HR, 2.00; P =0.015) at follow-up and baseline creatinine (HR, 8.19; P =0.001). The only factor independently associated with MACE was the degree of persisting leak at follow-up (HR, 3.01; P =0.002). Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of PVL is an effective procedure that improves PVL severity and symptoms. Severity of persisting leak at follow-up is independently associated with both MACE and death. Percutaneous closure should be considered as an alternative to repeat surgery. # Clinical Perspectives {#article-title-21}Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004–2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure (P<0.001) and was none (33.3%), mild (41.4%), moderate (18.6%), or severe (6.7%) at last follow-up. Mean New York Heart Association class improved from 2.7±0.8 preprocedure to 1.6±0.8 (P<0.001) after a median follow-up of 110 (7–452) days. Hospital mortality was 2.9% (elective), 6.8% (in-hospital urgent), and 50% (emergency) (P<0.001). MACE during follow-up included death (16%), valve surgery (6%), late device embolization (0.4%), and new hemolysis requiring transfusion (1.6%). Mitral PVL was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; P=0.011). Factors independently associated with death were the degree of persisting leak (HR, 2.87; P=0.037), New York Heart Association class (HR, 2.00; P=0.015) at follow-up and baseline creatinine (HR, 8.19; P=0.001). The only factor independently associated with MACE was the degree of persisting leak at follow-up (HR, 3.01; P=0.002). Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of PVL is an effective procedure that improves PVL severity and symptoms. Severity of persisting leak at follow-up is independently associated with both MACE and death. Percutaneous closure should be considered as an alternative to repeat surgery.

Percutaneous device closure of paravalvular leak

Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004–2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure ( P <0.001) and was none (33.3%), mild (41.4%), moderate (18.6%), or severe (6.7%) at last follow-up. Mean New York Heart Association class improved from 2.7±0.8 preprocedure to 1.6±0.8 ( P <0.001) after a median follow-up of 110 (7–452) days. Hospital mortality was 2.9% (elective), 6.8% (in-hospital urgent), and 50% (emergency) ( P <0.001). MACE during follow-up included death (16%), valve surgery (6%), late device embolization (0.4%), and new hemolysis requiring transfusion (1.6%). Mitral PVL was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; P =0.011). Factors independently associated with death were the degree of persisting leak (HR, 2.87; P =0.037), New York Heart Association class (HR, 2.00; P =0.015) at follow-up and baseline creatinine (HR, 8.19; P =0.001). The only factor independently associated with MACE was the degree of persisting leak at follow-up (HR, 3.01; P =0.002). Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of PVL is an effective procedure that improves PVL severity and symptoms. Severity of persisting leak at follow-up is independently associated with both MACE and death. Percutaneous closure should be considered as an alternative to repeat surgery. # Clinical Perspectives {#article-title-21}Background: Paravalvular leak (PVL) occurs in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement. Percutaneous device closure represents an alternative to repeat surgery. Methods: All UK and Ireland centers undertaking percutaneous PVL closure submitted data to the UK PVL Registry. Data were analyzed for association with death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at follow-up. Results: Three hundred eight PVL closure procedures were attempted in 259 patients in 20 centers (2004–2015). Patient age was 67±13 years; 28% were female. The main indications for closure were heart failure (80%) and hemolysis (16%). Devices were successfully implanted in 91% of patients, via radial (7%), femoral arterial (52%), femoral venous (33%), and apical (7%) approaches. Nineteen percent of patients required repeat procedures. The target valve was mitral (44%), aortic (48%), both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%). Preprocedural leak was severe (61%), moderate (34%), or mild (5.7%) and was multiple in 37%. PVL improved postprocedure (P<0.001) and was none (33.3%), mild (41.4%), moderate (18.6%), or severe (6.7%) at last follow-up. Mean New York Heart Association class improved from 2.7±0.8 preprocedure to 1.6±0.8 (P<0.001) after a median follow-up of 110 (7–452) days. Hospital mortality was 2.9% (elective), 6.8% (in-hospital urgent), and 50% (emergency) (P<0.001). MACE during follow-up included death (16%), valve surgery (6%), late device embolization (0.4%), and new hemolysis requiring transfusion (1.6%). Mitral PVL was associated with higher MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; P=0.011). Factors independently associated with death were the degree of persisting leak (HR, 2.87; P=0.037), New York Heart Association class (HR, 2.00; P=0.015) at follow-up and baseline creatinine (HR, 8.19; P=0.001). The only factor independently associated with MACE was the degree of persisting leak at follow-up (HR, 3.01; P=0.002). Conclusion: Percutaneous closure of PVL is an effective procedure that improves PVL severity and symptoms. Severity of persisting leak at follow-up is independently associated with both MACE and death. Percutaneous closure should be considered as an alternative to repeat surgery.

Conference, conscience and climate: Take flight

High quality evidence-based education is essential for the provision of the best in patient care. The medical conference has become one of many vehicles for providing such education. Medical conferences come in all sizes and, worldwide, are impossible to count in terms of number and cost both financially and environmentally. Some medical conferences in cardiology and the subspecialities attract a large international delegation (eg, European Society of Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association and, for subspeciality intervention, Euro-PCR (the official congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions) and Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics conference). Other national conferences in general cardiology and the subspecialities are more modest in size. These are supplemented by smaller, focussed conferences and round table meetings, which may involve a degree of travel. Advances in information technology have introduced video-conferencing, webinars, live streaming, webcasting and podcasting facilitating more ‘office’-based learning reducing the need to travel. For the large international conference questioning whether ‘the show should go on’ and if there are alternatives is not inappropriate in an age of evolving communication technology, austerity and climate change.1 ,2 While we are all conscious of the threat of global warming, evidence suggests that all air travel accounts for just 6.3% of carbon dioxide emissions. Travel to international conferences will have a miniscule effect on global warming but it is argued that doctors should lead by example,3 and maybe there is more we can do. Will the argument against the international conference hold up if the educational experience is deemed worth the cost and results in an improvement in patient care? A conference gives cardiologists, academics, allied healthcare professionals and industry professionals the opportunity to learn and network both academically and socially with colleagues nationally and internationally in …