Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘cardiology -Therapeutics’ Category

We know, The Mysterious Alibaba cave opens  with a voice password . . . legend  tell us it had unlimited hidden treasures. It would appear , CTOs mimic the cave in several ways. What is inside ? Should we open it ?  Can we come out safely ? Do we have any magical password in cath lab to get across the complex tissue boulders ?,   every cardiologist would love to have one !

chronic total occlusion alibaba cave corsair fileder xt pronova guideliner micro catheter asahi cart reverese cart cross boss sting ray

Dear CTO,Open Sesame . . . I have come with all the wires you love !  Please let me in !

Indication

“CTOs are never an emergency  . . .but please realise  we can very easily create one  while resuscitating a dead snake  ! 

Don’t think hard on evidence , then , you may not do a single case of CTO in your life .Forget all those pessimistic trials like OAT,COAT, etc and the recent ones DECISION-CTO. Ignore all guidelines. Ask your patient, and his insurance company , if they are willing , reserve the cath lab and get ready.

Pre-procedure  planning

Spend at least a hour to analyse the CTO Imagery one day prior and create n action plan.

Keep knowledgeable staff for assisting , but never ask for fellow colleagues help because it hurts our ego !  Cardiac surgeon’s back up is a welcome addition even if it’s on paper.

If possible , try to ask the patient genuinely ,what is his symptom at least once !  before starting the procedure. 

Timing of the procedure.

Don’t post a CTO patient  either on a busy Monday morning  or lazy Friday afternoon.

Hardware Inventory

The wires ,catheters, the balloons form the essential tool box .There is more than a  handful of coronary automobile companies manufacture this .It is all about metallurgy , knowledge of wires, catheters , and tip thickness, (Bullet shaped as in Asahi ) , slipping , hydrophophic or philic,  polymer coating , trackability, pushability , memory etc etc.

Guide wire tip morphology is as Important as the  Lesion characteristics !

Analysis of the lesion (Probably most important)

Unlike conventional PCI we have no initial target.We need to poke first and find the target next ! Distal vessel status  is most important ( Careful review of retrograde filling  through collaterals could give more information than CT angiograms .Calcification, diffuse disease can be a real hurdle)

Lesion morphology

Softness of lesion has to be felt (Requires good wire which has sensor (Paccinian corpuscles and Merckle disc ideal ?) I guess the cortical tactile feel is as vital as the  intervention expertise .I know at least one diabetic colleague of mine who finds it difficult  to cross a CTO  and admits he never found it easy to feel  the lesion through the wires . Autonomic dysfunction ?)

Operator  expertise

(Note: These are like reading  swimming guidelines , you can’t learn in the shores reading books ! you have to plunge !)

Many techniques are proposed .Sequential approach (Ironically experts are licensed to use  specialized wired wires directly .Beginners  are advised to go with non specialized hardware and escalate step by step) Some centers are blessed with new age weapons like cross Boss and sting ray that confront the lesions in multiple frontiers. (Carpet bombing?)

CTO playground. : Its essentially a coronary contact sport with expert septal surfing , tunnelling, knuckling , kneeling , bending . Of course , It  can end up in a gratifying win in few , still most of us tend to play this game without a goal (post !)

They are basically about poking the head of the lesion and trying to cross an occluded vessel  millimeter  by mm towards the presumed distal vessel in an Imaginary trajectory. Proximal cap, central core ,the blind tunnel , distal capsule and exit points each must be successfully conquered.

CTO crossing is  the ultimate capacity of the operator to realise and feel the position of the wires in true lumen and their confidence levels in their conviction!

Multiple wires up to three are used some times to poke the lesion two of them are used to shut the false tracks and the other one is expected to enter the true lumen (Looks too good on theory !) . These are referred to in as many terms like parallel wire see-saw , CART ,Reverse CART etc .Retrograde techniques do help us but has no magic solutions.The lumen contrast , guide wire tip movement and its  side branch entry  would help.

Tacking complication :Always anticipate , it’s not negative mind set to look for it  !

Keep pericardiocentesis kit , covered stents , micro  snares and other retrieval devices ready in cart. Your support staff should be well versed with what is happening around them. Some of  the dye leaks and stains are safe .They imply minor perforations that form  sealed hematomas  (The plane of perforations also matters. myocardial (ab-pericardial ) leaks are well tolerated .Distal perforations are also safe as long as CTO is not opened ) Online echocardiography should be readily available to monitor  pericardial space leak.

When bleed into pericardial space is life threatening , A comical, but life saving option is to close the artery and restore the CTO  its original state and come out of the lab quietly ! 

Newer Imaging guidance : Can be useful , still may not matter much  when considering the interventional acumen .

CTO PCI : Time as therapeutic end point.

CTO is not an endless game with out time frame .In my opinion it shouldn’t cross 45 minutes each as in a  soccer  game with a brief  strategic time out and of course with liberal use of ,yellow and red cards

Future directions

Japanese are the ones who pioneered  CTO Interventions . We expect more Innovations ! Is it the forward looking IVUS ? It is akin to tunneling for underground metro train with GPS guiding .If you can mark the proximal and distal  points , rest will be be taken care by mortised self tunneling catheters from Robotic arms steered by sophisticated algorithms.

Final  message

CTO PCI remains a real Interventional challenge. We are often double blinded  in both directions (antegrade as well as retrograde ). Needs much effort ,time, hardware and most importantly a non fatigued mind and body. The benefits we get may vary  between  gratifying to outright mediocre .Of course , it surely satisfies operator ego and express pride and courage !

Is crossing and stenting  a CTO  synonymous with true success ?

Yes it is , for the cardiologist and  the hospital  . . . I’m not sure about it for the patient !

In this  sense , CTOs  mimic the mysterious Alibaba cave that tempts us with Imaginary treasures but can trap us with a wrong password !

Post-Ample

* Who should CTO PCI  ?

I have seen  young , enthusiastic cardiologists with Immature support staff attempting CTO in remote sub- urban settings ! Though patience and expertise are essential ingredients, some amount of organised training and hardwares make CTO PCI safe and effective. Enthusiasm and affordability alone can’t be an Indication for this complex set of coronary lesions.

Reference 

 

I still wonder why  this vital paper was never published , it was just presented in the Annual ACC conference March 2017

http://www.eurocto.eu/

 http://www.cct.gr.jp/

Read Full Post »

Cardiologists at confused cross roads !

Perils of  limited Intellect & Infinite greed  

When not so appropriately trained cardiologists  do Inappropriate things “use becomes misuse” . . . then, it won’t take much time for science to become total abuse. That’s what happened with the murky world of coronary stents .No surprise, it’s time to firefight the healers instead of the disease !

Now ,Comes the ORBITA study . Yes , it looks like a God sent path breaking trial that spits some harsh truths not only in cardiology, but also in behavioral ethics .Let us not work over time and hunt for any non-existing loop holes in ORBITA. Even if it has few, it can be condoned for sure as we have essentially lived out of flawed science  for too long  Injuring many Innocent hearts !

ORBITA pci vs medical mangement drsvenkatesan courage bari2d ethics in stenting auc criteria inappropriate coronary stenting placebo effect of stenting acc aha esc guidelines chronic st

Yes , its enforced premature funeral  times for a wonderful technology !

GIF Image courtesy http://www.tenor.com

Meanwhile, let us pray for a selective resurrection of  stenting in chronic coronary syndromes  and stop behaving like lesser professionals !

Postample

Extremely  sorry . . . to  all those discerning academic folks , who are looking for a true scientific review of ORBITA , please look elsewhere !

Read Full Post »

Primary PCI (pPCI) is a  glorious revascularization strategy for STEMI practiced for over 2 decades  but still has not proved its perceived mettle convincingly as a large population based strategy. In the mean time, the utility value  of  thrombolysis  was systematically  (Intentionally too! )  downgraded in the minds of both academic and public mind.
Truth can’t be buried for long. Series of revelations are coming up restoring the superiority of early thrombolysis over pPCI even in PCI capable centers.
In 2013, the high Impact STREAM trial argued  for pharmacoinvasive approach within 3 hrs as it was at equipoise with a pPCI. Now, EARLY -MYO  from China vouch  for pharmaco- Invasive approach  till 6 hours. (Just published in Circulation September 2017 )
 
 I think we need to wait for some more time , for another prevailing  falsehood that need to be busted ,(Looking  out for some straight thinking new generation cardiologist to do it !)
What is that ?
Many of us have misunderstood(rather made to !)  that pharmaco Invasive has a defined therapeutic endpoint ie taming  & stenting the IRA . This is absolute ignorance  happening even in state of the art centres ,ironically this beleaguered concept is  backed by peer-reviewed papers from premier journals. The fact of the matter is , If thrombolysis is stunningly successful (Which at the least happens in 50 % ) one can stop with that , it’s also a therapeutic endpoint at least for time being .
Is coronary angiogram a baseline test like ECG ?
That’s what current cardiologists with cutting edge knowledge  seem to believe !  Do you agree ! I am sure I’m not !
 Patients with STEMI who had successful thrombolysis who had an  apparently uncomplicated course (Assessed by strict clinical ECG, ECHO criteria) need not go for coronary angiogram in the immediate future.In fact some good guidelines strongly argue for it and call it as Ischemia driven PCI ! but very few seem to respect that concept.)This will not only contain the cost and ensure the vast majority of Inappropriate (  scientific quackery) coronary plumping activity in human race.
Searching for an elusive data ! Can some one help ?
I have been searching for data , from all those major pharmaco invasive studies (Which is not being reported /shared or analysed )
How many  patients in the “success cohort” after thrombolysis  who subsequently land up with urgent PCI related complications when trying to stent an already reperfused IRA or while tackling  coexisting Innocent or non-innocent non IRA lesions ?
* Complications and adverse events  may be acceptable in patients who had failed thrombolysis or who are  unstable  but even minor adverse events are forbidden in patient with a truly successful and asymptomatic patient.
Final message
So called scientific facts have very short half life !  for the simple reason they are let loose in human domain prematurely !
Reference 

Read Full Post »


Professional competence is defined as doing things, always in the Interest of patients. It’s generally believed small hospitals are not competent enough to treat cardiac emergencies . . .Do you agree with that ? No, Its largely a myth . Do you know there is a absolute  lack of proficiency  threatening to plague our country’s coronary care system. ? It’s the professional  Incompetence by the space age, star hospitals (mis)managed by masters of the noble business. None (am I right ?) of this hospitals either monitor or publish the outcome of their treatment.

Backed by pseudo scientific data , amplified by unrealistic expectations of ill Informed patients , some  hospitals are avoiding Initial emergency treatment of acute MI  , instead they waste time ( load DAPT ofcourse !) in securing the finance  for the costly Invasive procedures or refer them out of their premises if they can’t afford for it.In the ensuing emotional and financial melee many of the ill-fated patients lose vital  time window of thrombolysis as well ! and carry risk of fatality or damaged myocardium.

Every stake holder in the current  coronary care system simply assume the enforced modality  must be far superior because they administer the most modern and costly treatment suggested by few high intensity cared clinical trials originating from west. The wisemen who run the corporate hospitals  never realise medical competence and outcome is not entirely defined by science. Their primitive cognition wouldn’t allow to think beyond business equations either.

Please believe me, time and again, I have witnessed patients reaching Government hospitals  after being shunned away by  big (Some times even medium sized )  hospitals who boast themself only as PCI enabled care. Even if they want to lyse they stock only the Tenekteplace .

I think tragedy  is a lesser word to describe the scenario , where a distressed family is trying to arrange  for a Rs30,000 shot of Tenekteplace when thirty times cheaper still equally efficacious (Rs 1000 Streptokinase)  is concealed from their visibility .The Govt should urgently look into instances of large private hospitals avoiding Govt insurance scheme patients  even in  cardiac emergencies ! To label our poor patients as unaffordable ones is a outright misnomer, rather its the rich hospitals that are “not affordable” to lose profit and treat our countrymen , in a cost effective manner is the reality !

Who is Poor ? You decide.

Two forbidden things in coronary care

 1.Cajoling  and manoeuvring a distressed  family for a primary PCI as a routine treatment  hyping its beneficial effect and underplaying the true advantages of thrombolysis in largely technical jargons is the current norm in most coronary care units.

2.Another issue is , after confused confabulations with the duty medical officer,  if a rare patient family  choose the option of thrombolysis , comes the next googly*.  Many noble minded hospitals do not stock the low-cost and equally efficacious thrombolytic agent and offering  only the costly option to the anxious families when the myocardium is on fire.

Hospitals that  practice these two coronary protocols  need to be shamed and labeled as  “Coronary Incompetent  ” In spite of having 24/7 cath labs.  (Realise , they are just like  any remote rural hospitals , at least  the later can’t be faulted  as they don’t  withhold  a  reperfusion strategy  !)

Final message

I think , mindless proliferation of cath lab based cardiac care , which follow this theme , ie  “Thrombolysis incapable but PCI capable “ are  biggest threat to coronary care in our country ! For the best coronary care for any country ,what we need is efficient prehospital thrombolysis team .We have conveniently forgotten the great study of CAPTIM wherein the ambulance drivers replicated the same effect of primary PCI performed by highly trained cardiologists in modern labs.

In India,  primary health centers which is within  few km reach of entire population  can be designated as static ambulance equivalents  with basic resuscitation facility . If a multipurpose health worker can be trained to lyse, with remote supervision that will accomplish  90 % of what the cathlab guys can achieve ! Selective shifting is suffice.

Postample :  Ofcourse, not doing  pPCI for high risk or complicated STEMI is unscientific and we need to have proper consenting and referring frame-work for such patients.

Counter point : One of my colleagues asked me ? Why do I enjoy attacking the established scientific practices ?  May be I have a problem , yes, but  I think in a  true medical democracy we have right to debate anything , absolute truth is a ongoing journey !

 

 

*Googly:  An unplayable ball delivered to a batsman in the game of  cricket.

Read Full Post »

Critical multivessel CAD is commonly confronted by cardiologists .These patients either receive multivessel stenting, CABG, with or without optimal medical management(OMT) !

CABG is always done with intention of  complete revasularisation  for all significant lesions. Comprehensive  multivessel PCI though feasible is not practiced widely.Considering the diffuse nature of CAD no treatment is complete except probably intensive medical management.

As of now , addressing only one (or two ) critical lesions in a triple vessel disease by PCI though appear attractive and logical is considered unscientific.Guidelines are not clear in answering the issue.

multivessel-pci-ptca-courage-trial-syntax-cabg-freedom-bari-acc-aha-guidelines

In a triple vessel disease with a critical LAD lesion,  

Shall we do PCI for LAD and medical management for lesions in RCA or LCX  ?

How about this coronary wisdom  “While medical therapy can take care of less tighter lesions , only critical lesions need catheter based Intervention”

In fact, in STEMI setting we do apply this logic of  targeting one lesion (IRA) at a time. Why not in chronic coronary setting ? There are significant  pros and cons for this approach.While, most 0f us will go with the logical herd,an unique  paper by Mineok  asks us to think again(American Heart Journal, 2016-09-01, 157-165)

How do you define the completeness of revascularization? Is it not emprical ?

We know medical management has well documented advantages in chronic CAD. while multivessel stenting has its own hazards.Hence limiting the time spent within the coronary artery and reducing total stent length should be one of our important goals.

A mini quiz  . . .

How often you have left a fairly significant lesion (attending only the critical lesions )  in your practice ?

What do you think will happen to those non critical lesions  in the long run  ?

Do you believe earnestly drugs can take care of these lesions ?

Forget the science . Whats your experience and  gut feeling ? 

Do you agree , even surgeons do not always do a complete revascularisation either intentionally or for technical reasons ?

Finally ,why we are still  hesitant to call intensive medical therapy as a  “Revascularisation  equivalent”  inspite of valid proof for improved functional class, symptom relief , regression of atherosclerois , collateral preservation and improved microcirculaion.

Final message 

I would say , the science of coronary revascularisation in chronic CAD is stranded at a confused cross road even after three decades of aggressively grown interventional cardiology .At any given point of time medical  management can give a tough fight to catheter  based intervention in most stable IHD.

Hybrid therapy doesn’t always mean combination of PCI and CABG. Judicious mix of PCI and medical therapy is also  a hybrid modality that can bring CAD burden effectively in a meaningful fashion with less metal load.   If you can convert a critical triple vessel disease to non critical DVD or SVD with a single stent it should be welcomed without prejudice. 

With a section of cardiac scientists are in hot pursuit for a completely  bi0reabsorbable stents , let us adopt this “Minimalistic PCI approach” in multivessel CAD, till the time  we reach the “dream the end point” of modern coronary care , ie to  get rid of stent altogether by biological cure for atherosclerosis.

Reference

1.Mineok chang, Jung MinAhn, Nayoung  complete versus incomplete revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents Kim,American Heart Journal, 2016-09-01, 157-165,

 2.Tamburino C, Angiolillo DJ, Capranzano P, et al: Complete versus incomplete revascularization in patients with multivessel disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 72: pp. 448-456

3.Wu C, Dyer AM, King SB, et al: Impact of incomplete revascularization on long-term mortality after coronary stenting. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: pp. 413-421

4.Gao Z, Xu B, Yang YJ, et al: Long-term outcomes of complete versus incomplete revascularization after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 82: pp. 343-349

5.Ong ATL,Serruys PW. Complete revascularization: coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 2006; 114: 249255

Read Full Post »

Less than a century ago an easy chair  was enough to manage this most important medical emergency of mankind. Of course, at that time mortality of STEMI was estimated to be around 30%.We have since pushed the in-hospital death rate down to less than 10 %  and its around 5-8% currently.(*The lifeless chairs were able to save 70 lives is a different story!)

Heparin , thrombolytic agents, critical coronary care has helped us to achieve this , of course It must be admitted primary PCI also played a small role (at best 1 % ) in our fight against this number one killer.

Now, why not combine  both lysis and PCI ?

The concept of PIA (Pharmaco Invasive approach) came into vogue  primarily for two reasons.

1.If thrombolysis and  pPCI are powerful strategies by individual merits why not combine both and achieve double the benefit ?

2. Since pPCI is going to be a logistical nightmare in most points of care and we can’t afford to lose time . So, let us lyse first and consider PCI later !

Unfortunately medical science is not math .One plus one in medicine is rarely two !

Though , it looks attractive , Pharmaco invasive approach  has its own troubles.Fortunately , most of them are man-made, few are beyond our knowledge though.

Following general rules  may help us

  • STEMI  should ideally managed by early thrombolysis (or PCI) in all deserving patients.
  • Don’t wait for PCI if you think , there will be delay or reduced expertise and poor track record of the center in this modality.
  • Pharmaco invasive  therapy is not a default in all STEMI .Do good quality , monitored  lysis , (Not necessarily new generation thrombolytic .(I prefer one hour sustained thrombolytic regimen , not the hit or miss bolus) .As a learned cardiologist we need to assess individual patients according to the type and risk of MI.Its not wise to blindly follow the guidelines ,because these guidelines , though based on evidence never answers a query in a single patient perspective !

The key “branch points”  in decision making  after lysis

  • Invasive strategy  should begin within one hour if the patient has failed  thrombolysis and has developed any mechanical issues.( Mind you, LVF requires good medical stabilization .Rushing  such patients to cath lab without application of mind can be disastrous )
  • If the Initial  lysis is excellent and the patient is asymptomatic  one need not proceed with invasive limb at all.(A significant chunk of apparently failed lysis by ECG are asymptomatic and comfortable , these are patients require delicate assessment regarding further intervention. )
  • If the MI is large and the clinical  stability is “not confirmed” one may  proceed urgently within 24 h.
  • In any case there is no role for invasive approach after 24 hours* Unless fresh ischemia  suspected to come from IRA or  non IRA.
  • Having  said that, there are many centers that do a diagnostic  angiogram alone just prior to discharge  (48-72h) for risk stratification and then take a genuine call for a possible PCI or  CABG. In my opinion it appears a sensible strategy , though a non invasive stress  test pre/post discharge can even avoid that  coronary angiogram !

One issue with Rescue PIA

Though by current definition  PIA is to be done  3-24 hours , don’t wait for the 4th hour if you have recognized a failed thrombolysis earlier than three hours.( Ofcourse , as the gap between P and I gets too narrowed it may  carry some adverse  effects witnessed in routine facilitated PCI -Refer FINESSE study ) Similarly,there need not be a blanket ban on PCI beyond 24 hours if residual ischemia is active.

Final message

PIA is a dynamic  coronary  re -perfusion strategy . Nothing is fixed in science. . The optimal gap between Pharmaco and invasive strategy  can be anywhere between  1 hour to “Infinitely deferred” depending upon individual risk perception and wisdom of the treating cardiologist.

 

 

 

I

Read Full Post »

One of my fellows gave a discharge summary  for a 62 year old patient with stable diabetic  CAD  who had Triple vessel disease with a final advice reading as CABG / PCI/or OMT .

There was a near fury over his angiogram report in the cath meet. How can be  eligible for all the three Intervention at the same time ?.(PCI -Percutaneous coroanry Inervention ,CABG-Coroanry artery by-pass graft, OMT-Optimal medical therapy )

The lesion in question was , Triple vessel disease(Non critical LAD) and significant LCX and again a non critical RCA .Syntax was less than 22 for sure , however the patient  had class 2 angina (now reducing ) .When asked to explain  , the fellow  argued since the patient  is symptomatic , has DM with TVD  he is eligible for CABG , since  LCX lesion was discrete and PCI was distinctly possible , of course as all three  lesions would be  eligible for OMT on any given day  ! he inferred .

How can  a cardiologist be so casual and non-commital in an important medical decision where a life of a heart is at stake.There was a unanimous condemnation about the report. As a consultant he has to be specific , one can’t leave the decision to  your patient’s whims  . . . rather it’s our scientific whims  that should prevail  !

 

MEDICAL VS PCI VS CABG OMT COURAGE BARI 2D FREEDOM FAME STUDY MASS 2 CASS OPTOMAL MEDICAL MANAGEMENT SYNTAX ACC AHA ESC GUIDELINES PTCA STS EUROSCORE NEJM

The curiosity continued and looked amusing for many. I was the only one supporting  his argument ! After all , he is being frank and understood the futility of  applying  evolving knowledge base in critical decision making. But, I  asked him to grade the choices .In my opinion  OMT should be the first choice if it can be administered , but reality tells me  true OMT is rare as a modality  at-least in  this  part of world . However every one should insist for it.

Apart from poor  compliance for OMT , pressure  mounts for a procedure from peers and non peers . I am  sure  many  patients  will end up with an  invasive modality sooner or later  backed by a  second or  third opinion  driven by that elusive googled intellect !

Final message

When clinical decision making is debatable with available knowledge (Especially with futile and evolving knowledge base !) , please include your patient into the debate and you may even consider giving him the veto power.If Hippocrates is alive today , I am sure he will argue for medical  knowledge and ignorance should be equally shared with their  patients.

Counter thoughts

Don’t give the choice to your patient  . . . that would mean you lack  clarity, wisdom and confidence !

No, I don’t agree , I know there are  some  patients who are  well informed , rational , more focused than even a professional  !

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »