Coronary Artery Disease

Sposito AC, Caramelli B, Fonseca FA, Bertolami MC, Afiune Neto A, Souza AD, Lottenberg AM, Chacra AP, Faludi AA, Loures-Vale AA, Carvalho AC, Duncan B, Gelonese B, Polanczyk C, Rodrigues Sobrinho CR, Scherr C, Karla C, Armaganijan D, Moriguchi E, Saraiva F, Pichetti G, Xavier HT, Chaves H, Borges JL, Diament J, Guimarães JI, Nicolau JC, dos Santos JE, de Lima JJ, Vieira JL, Novazzi JP, Faria Neto JR, Torres KP, Pinto Lde A, Bricarello L, Bodanese LC, Introcaso L, Malachias MV, Izar MC, Magalhães ME, Schmidt MI, Scartezini M, Nobre M, Foppa M, Forti NA, Berwanger O, Gebara OC, Coelho OR, Maranhão RC, dos Santos RD, Costa RP, Barreto S, Kaiser S, Ihara S, Carvalho T, Martinez TL, Relvas WG, Salgado W, Anonymous00455. · No affiliation provided · Arq Bras Cardiol. · Pubmed #17515982 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Grines CL, Bonow RO, Casey DE, Gardner TJ, Lockhart PB, Moliterno DJ, O'Gara P, Whitlow P, Anonymous00301, Anonymous00302, Anonymous00303, Anonymous00304, Anonymous00305, Anonymous00306. · William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA. · J Am Dent Assoc. · Pubmed #17473044 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: and Overview. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a thienopyridine has been shown to reduce cardiac events after coronary stenting. However, many patients and health care providers prematurely discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy, which greatly increases the risk of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction and death. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This advisory stresses the importance of 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after placement of a drug-eluting stent and educating patients and health care providers about hazards of premature discontinuation. It also recommends postponing elective surgery for one year, and if surgery cannot be deferred, considering the continuation of aspirin during the perioperative period in high-risk patients with drug-eluting stents.

Anonymous00160, Anonymous00161, Anonymous00162, Anonymous00163, Anonymous00164, Anonymous00165, Anonymous00166. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Radiol. · Pubmed #17412166 No free full text.

Abstract: Under the auspices of the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, appropriateness reviews were conducted for 2 relatively new clinical cardiac imaging modalities, cardiac computed tomography (CCT) and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The reviews assessed the risks and benefits of the imaging tests for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them based on a scale of 1 to 9, where the upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The mid-range (4 to 6) indicates an uncertain clinical scenario. The indications for these reviews were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as few clinical practice guidelines currently exist for these techniques. These indications were reviewed by an independent group of clinicians and modified by the Working Group, and then panelists rated the indications based on the ACCF Methodology for Evaluating the Appropriateness of Cardiovascular Imaging, which blends scientific evidence and practice experience. A modified Delphi technique was used to obtain first and second round ratings of clinical indications after the panelists were provided with a set of literature reviews, evidence tables, and seminal references. The final ratings were evenly distributed among the 3 categories of appropriateness for both CCT and CMR. Use of tests for structure and function and for diagnosis in symptomatic, intermediate coronary artery disease (CAD) risk patients was deemed appropriate, while repeat testing and general screening uses were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and future research directions.

Wu QY, Xu JP, Gao CQ. · No affiliation provided · Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. · Pubmed #17359653 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Kerin K, Welch HG. · VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction, VT, USA. · J Gen Intern Med. · Pubmed #17356986 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using C-reactive protein (CRP) levels to help select patients for lipid lowering therapy--although this practice is not yet supported by evidence of benefit in a randomized trial. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number of Americans potentially affected if a CRP criteria were adopted as an additional indication for lipid lowering therapy. To provide context, we also determined how well current lipid lowering guidelines are being implemented. METHODS: We analyzed nationally representative data to determine how many Americans age 35 and older meet current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) treatment criteria (a combination of risk factors and their Framingham risk score). We then determined how many of the remaining individuals would meet criteria for treatment using 2 different CRP-based strategies: (1) narrow: treat individuals at intermediate risk (i.e., 2 or more risk factors and an estimated 10-20% risk of coronary artery disease over the next 10 years) with CRP > 3 mg/L and (2) broad: treat all individuals with CRP > 3 mg/L. DATA SOURCE: Analyses are based on the 2,778 individuals participating in the 1999-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey with complete data on cardiac risk factors, fasting lipid levels, CRP, and use of lipid lowering agents. MAIN MEASURES: The estimated number and proportion of American adults meeting NCEP criteria who take lipid-lowering drugs, and the additional number who would be eligible based on CRP testing. RESULTS: About 53 of the 153 million Americans aged 35 and older meet current NCEP criteria (that do not involve CRP) for lipid-lowering treatment. Sixty-five percent, however, are not currently being treated, even among those at highest risk (i.e., patients with established heart disease or its risk equivalent)-62% are untreated. Adopting the narrow and broad CRP strategies would make an additional 2.1 and 25.3 million Americans eligible for treatment, respectively. The latter strategy would make over half the adults age 35 and older eligible for lipid-lowering therapy, with most of the additionally eligible (57%) coming from the lowest NCEP heart risk category (i.e., 0-1 risk factors). CONCLUSION: There is substantial underuse of lipid lowering therapy for American adults at high risk for coronary disease. Rather than adopting CRP-based strategies, which would make millions more lower risk patients eligible for treatment (and for whom treatment benefit has not yet been demonstrated in a randomized trial), we should ensure the treatment of currently defined high-risk patients for whom the benefit of therapy is established.

Anonymous00019. · No affiliation provided · Pediatrics. · Pubmed #17332217 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Love MP, Schampaert E, Cohen EA, Webb JG, Anderson TJ, Labinaz M, Tanguay JF, Dzavík V, Anonymous00032, Anonymous00033. · Division of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia. · Can J Cardiol. · Pubmed #17311117 links to  free full text

Abstract: Recent reports of late stent thrombosis events following deployment of drug-eluting stents (DES) have raised concerns about their safety and role in the management of coronary artery disease. The Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society have carefully examined the available evidence, including the data presented at the recent Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel meeting. The purpose of the present statement is to summarize the available evidence relating to DES thrombosis and to provide practical recommendations regarding DES use and antiplatelet therapy.

Beanlands RS, Chow BJ, Dick A, Friedrich MG, Gulenchyn KY, Kiess M, Leong-Poi H, Miller RM, Nichol G, Freeman M, Bogaty P, Honos G, Hudon G, Wisenberg G, Van Berkom J, Williams K, Yoshinaga K, Graham J, Anonymous00027, Anonymous00028, Anonymous00029, Anonymous00030, Anonymous00031. · University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada. · Can J Cardiol. · Pubmed #17311116 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, advanced imaging modalities with excellent diagnostic capabilities have emerged. The aim of the present position statement was to systematically review existing literature to define Canadian recommendations for their clinical use. METHODS: A systematic literature review to 2005 was conducted for positron emission tomography (PET), multidetector computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in ischemic heart disease. Papers that met the criteria were reviewed for accuracy, prognosis data and study quality. Recommendations were presented to primary and secondary panels of experts, and consensus was achieved. RESULTS: Indications for PET include detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) with perfusion imaging, and defining viability using fluorodeoxyglucose to determine left ventricular function recovery and/or prognosis after revascularization (class I). Detection of CAD in patients, vessel segments and grafts using computed tomographic angiography was considered class IIa at the time of the literature review. Dobutamine MRI is class I for CAD detection and, along with late gadolinium enhancement MRI, class I for viability detection to predict left ventricular function recovery. Imaging must be performed at institutions and interpreted by physicians with adequate experience and training. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac imaging using advanced modalities (PET, multidetector computed tomographic angiography and MRI) is useful for CAD detection, viability definition and, in some cases, prognosis. These modalities complement the more widespread single photon emission computed tomography and echocardiography. Given the rapid evolution of technology, initial guidelines for clinical use will require regular updates. Evaluation of their integration in clinical practice should be ongoing; optimal use will require proper training. A joint effort among specialties is recommended to achieve these goals.

Qureshi AI, Alexandrov AV, Tegeler CH, Hobson RW, Dennis Baker J, Hopkins LN, Anonymous00390, Anonymous00391. · Zeenat Qureshi Stroke Research Center (AIQ), University of Minnescta, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. · J Neuroimaging. · Pubmed #17238868 No free full text.

Abstract: The aim of this new statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis in the general population and selected subsets of patients. Recommendations are included for high-risk persons in the general population; patients undergoing open heart surgery including coronary artery bypass surgery; patients with peripheral vascular diseases, abdominal aortic aneurysms, and renal artery stenosis; patients after radiotherapy for head and neck malignancies; patients following carotid endarterectomy, or carotid artery stent placement; patients with retinal ischemic syndromes; patients with syncope, dizziness, vertigo or tinnitus; and patients with a family history of vascular diseases and hyperhomocysteinemia. The recommendations are based on prevalence of disease, anticipated benefit, and concurrent guidelines from other professional organizations in selected populations.

Rydén L, Standl E, Bartnik M, Van den Berghe G, Betteridge J, de Boer MJ, Cosentino F, Jönsson B, Laakso M, Malmberg K, Priori S, Ostergren J, Tuomilehto J, Thrainsdottir I, Vanhorebeek I, Stramba-Badiale M, Lindgren P, Qiao Q, Priori SG, Blanc JJ, Budaj A, Camm J, Dean V, Deckers J, Dickstein K, Lekakis J, McGregor K, Metra M, Morais J, Osterspey A, Tamargo J, Zamorano JL, Deckers JW, Bertrand M, Charbonnel B, Erdmann E, Ferrannini E, Flyvbjerg A, Gohlke H, Juanatey JR, Graham I, Monteiro PF, Parhofer K, Pyörälä K, Raz I, Schernthaner G, Volpe M, Wood D, Anonymous00256, Anonymous00257. · Department of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. · Eur Heart J. · Pubmed #17220161 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Henzlova MJ, Cerqueira MD, Mahmarian JJ, Yao SS, Anonymous00361. · No affiliation provided · J Nucl Cardiol. · Pubmed #17174798 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Amsterdam EA, Anonymous00213, Anonymous00214. · University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. · Prev Cardiol. · Pubmed #17085988 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

White CJ, Jaff MR, Haskal ZJ, Jones DJ, Olin JW, Rocha-Singh KJ, Rosenfield KA, Rundback JH, Linas SL, Anonymous00320, Anonymous00321, Anonymous00322. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #17030686 links to  free full text

Abstract: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is commonly present in patients with clinically manifest atherosclerosis in other vascular beds and is independently associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Screening tests such as renal angiography should be selectively applied to patients at high risk for renal artery stenosis who are potential candidates for revascularization. This multispecialty consensus document describes the rationale for patient selection for screening renal angiography at the time of cardiac catheterization.

McPherson R, Frohlich J, Fodor G, Genest J, Canadian Cardiovascular Society. · University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Canada. · Can J Cardiol. · Pubmed #16971976 links to  free full text

Abstract: Since the last publication of the recommendations for the management and treatment of dyslipidemia, new clinical trial data have emerged that support a more vigorous approach to lipid lowering in specific patient groups. The decision was made to update the lipid guidelines in collaboration with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society. A systematic electronic search of medical literature for original research consisting of blinded, randomized controlled trials was performed. Meta-analyses of studies of the efficacy and safety of lipid-lowering therapies, and of the predictive value of established and emerging risk factors were also reviewed. All recommendations are evidence-based, and have been reviewed in detail by primary and secondary review panels. Major changes include a lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment target (lower than 2.0 mmol/L) for high-risk patients, a slightly higher intervention point for the initiation of drug therapy in most low-risk individuals (LDL-C of 5.0 mmol/L or a total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio of 6.0) and recommendations regarding additional investigations of potential use in the further evaluation of coronary artery disease risk in subjects in the moderate-risk category.

Jessup M, Banner N, Brozena S, Campana C, Costard-Jäckle A, Dengler T, Hunt S, Metra M, Rahmel A, Renlund D, Ross H, Warner Stevenson L. · International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Addison, Texas 75001, USA. · J Heart Lung Transplant. · Pubmed #16962463 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Poole JE, Anonymous00014. · University of Washington School of Medicine,Division of Cardiology, Box 356422, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Seattle, WA 98195-6422, USA. · Curr Cardiol Rep. · Pubmed #16956447 No free full text.

Abstract: Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy has been extensively evaluated in patients at high risk of sudden cardiac death. Most recently, the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial found that patients with moderate symptoms of congestive heart failure, whether due to an ischemic or a nonischemic cause, have reduced mortality compared with patients treated only with conventional medical therapy for heart failure. The results of this trial confirm those of earlier trials finding a benefit of ICD therapy in patients with coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular systolic function, and extend the indications for ICD therapy to those without coronary artery disease.

Anonymous00216. · No affiliation provided · J Assoc Physicians India. · Pubmed #16909697 No free full text.

Abstract: The incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) has dramatically increased in India during the recent years. There are two facets of CAD: stable CAD and unstable CAD which includes patients with acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, ST elevation myocardial infarction). The treatment of stable CAD (stable angina) includes anti-anginal medication, medication to modify atherosclerosis and aggressive treatment of causative risk factors. Those patients with stable CAD who have symptoms refractory to medical treatment usually require coronary angiography to be followed by either percutaneous or surgical revascularization. Percutaneous coronary revascularization using drug eluting stents has been a major revolution during the last five years for symptomatic relief of angina in symptomatic CAD and can be applied to large subsets of patients. Off-pump surgical revascularization using arterial grafts is a major advance and bypass surgery continues to remain treatment of choice in diabetics with multi-vessel CAD, left main CAD and in patients with multivessel disease and impaired ventricles. Acute coronary syndromes are usually caused by plaque rupture with resultant thrombus and present as unstable angina, non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is now increasingly realized that these patients (particularly the one with high risk) are best managed in advanced cardiac care centres with facilities for cardiac catheterization laboratory, percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary bypass surgery. In both, NSTEMI and STEMI aggressive medical management involving nitrates, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, dual anti-platelet agents, heparin and statins are recommended. High risk patients with NSTE-ACS require use of glycoprotein IIa / IIIb inhibitors along with early invasive approach involving coronary angiography, angioplasty using drug eluting stent and in some patients bypass surgery. Early reperfusion is key to management of patients presenting with STEMI. If facilities are available, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (angioplasty with stenting) is treatment of choice for patients with STEMI. In our country, thrombolysis still remains the most frequently utilized reperfusion therapy and all efforts should be devoted to provide this therapy at the earliest. All high risk patients with STEMI (including cardiogenic shock) are best treated in higher centres and these patients should be promptly transported to such centres. Early coronary angiography is recommended for majority of patients following thrombolysis for risk stratification and further treatment. In acute coronary syndromes there is drift towards early invasive treatment and this is reflected in marked increase in cardiac care (catheterization laboratories and cardiac surgery centers) facilities throughout India. All patients with CAD require life-long supervised treatment which includes medication, control of risk factors and lifestyle modification. Avoidance of smoking, heart healthy diet, proper exercise, ideal weight management are important for all the patients. Statins, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, antiplatelet agents have a great role to play in treatment and prevention and these drugs should be utilized under medical supervision. It is important that the medical profession play an important role in critically evaluating the use of diagnostic procedures and therapies as they are introduced and tested in the detection and management of cardiac disorders. The American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) and several other societies engage in production of guidelines in the area of cardiovascular diseases from time to time. These guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. The aim of the guidelines is to improve the patient care. The ultimate judgement regarding the care of the particular patient is to be made by the clinician / healthcare provider keeping in mind all the circumstances. The incidence and prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) has increased tremendously in India during the last two decades and this change is largely attributable to lifestyle changes. There has also been a rapid progress in the treatment of CAD with proliferation of specialized cardiac care units, intensive care units, cardiac catheterization laboratories and facilities for bypass surgery. It is estimated that there are over 400 catheterization laboratories currently in India and nearly half of them are located in six major cities. The increase in disease and availability of facilities has resulted in a dramatic change and the focus is shifting from only medical treatment to invasive treatment. This document is an expert consensus document which has been prepared by going through the available guidelines and other relevant literature on the subject. The experts have performed a formal review of the literature and have weighed the strength of evidence for or against a particular therapy as it can be applied in Indian scenario. The consensus document deals with the management of ischemic heart disease (IHD) under following sections: 1) Stable Angina 2) Non ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) 3) ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (STE-ACS) or Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI).

Anonymous00282, Anonymous00283, Anonymous00284, Anonymous00285, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, de Leon AC, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O'Gara PT, O'Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Smith SC, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Faxon DP, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Page RL, Riegel B. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #16880336 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

College of Physicians and College of Radiologists Joint Writing Committee, Thye HK, Han KB, chen K, Chua K, Kwok R, Teng LY, Ping LL, Tan A, Shih-Chang W, Yan P. · No affiliation provided · Ann Acad Med Singapore. · Pubmed #16722015 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Anonymous00057, Anonymous00058, Anonymous00059, Smith SC, Allen J, Blair SN, Bonow RO, Brass LM, Fonarow GC, Grundy SM, Hiratzka L, Jones D, Krumholz HM, Mosca L, Pearson T, Pfeffer MA, Taubert KA. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #16697342 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

McKenney JM, Davidson MH, Jacobson TA, Guyton JR, Anonymous00227. · National Clinical Research, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia 23294, USA. · Am J Cardiol. · Pubmed #16581336 No free full text.

Abstract: This article summarizes the final conclusions of the National Lipid Association (NLA) Statin Safety Task Force, based on a review and independent research of New Drug Application (NDA) information, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) data, cohort and clinical trial results, and analysis of administrative claims database information and the assessment of its 4 Expert Panels, which focused on issues of statin safety with regard to liver, muscle, renal, and neurologic systems. Practical guidance in the form of recommendations to health professionals who manage the coronary artery disease risk of patients with statin therapy is provided.

Dawkins KD, Gershlick T, de Belder M, Chauhan A, Venn G, Schofield P, Smith D, Watkins J, Gray HH, Anonymous00009. · British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, London, UK. · Heart. · Pubmed #16365340 links to  free full text

Abstract: Cardiologists undertaking percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are excited by the combination of patient and physician satisfaction and technological advance occurring on the background of the necessary manual dexterity. Progress and applicability of percutaneous techniques since their inception in 1977 have been remarkable; a sound evidence base coupled with the enthusiasm and ingenuity of the medical device industry has resulted in a sea change in the treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD), which continues to evolve at breakneck speed. This is the third set of guidelines produced by the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society and the British Cardiac Society. Following the last set of guidelines published in 2000, we have seen PCI activity in the UK increase from 33,652 to 62,780 (87% in four years) such that the PCI to coronary artery bypass grafting ratio has increased to 2.5:1. The impact of drug eluting stents has been profound, and the Department of Health is investigating the feasibility of primary PCI for acute myocardial infarction. Nevertheless, the changes in the structure of National Health Service funding are likely to focus our attention on cost effective treatments and will require physician engagement and sensitive handling if we are to continue the rapid and appropriate growth in our chosen field. It is important with this burgeoning development now occurring on a broad front (in both regional centres and district general hospitals) that we maintain our vigilance on audit and outcome measures so that standards are maintained for both operators and institutions alike. This set of guidelines includes new sections on training, informed consent, and a core evidence base, which we hope you will find useful and informative.

Chambers CE, Eisenhauer MD, McNicol LB, Block PC, Phillips WJ, Dehmer GJ, Heupler FA, Blankenship JC, Anonymous00053. · Hershey Medical Center, 500 University Drive H047, Division of Cardiology Hershey, PA 17033, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #16331649 No free full text.

Abstract: In the early years of diagnostic cardiac catheterization, strict sterile precautions were required for cutdown procedures. Thirteen years ago, when the original guidelines were written, the brachial arteriotomy was still frequently utilized, femoral closure devices were uncommon, "implantables," such as intracoronary stents and PFO/ASD closure devices, were in their infancy, and percutaneous valve replacement was not a consideration. In 2005, the cardiac catheterization laboratory is a complex interventional suite with percutaneous access routine and device implantation standard. Despite frequent device implantation, strict sterile precautions are often not observed. Reasons for this include a decline in brachial artery cutdown, limited postprocedure follow-up with few reported infections, limited use of hats and masks in televised cases, and lack of current guidelines. Proper sterile technique has the potential to decrease the patient infection rate. Hand washing remains the most important procedure for preventing infections. Caps, masks, gowns, and gloves help to protect the patient by maintaining a sterile field. Protection of personnel may be accomplished by proper gowning, gloving, and eye wear, disposal of contaminated equipment, and prevention and care of puncture wounds and lacerations. With the potential for acquired disease from blood-borne pathogens, the need for protective measures is as essential in the cardiac catheterization laboratory as is the standard Universal Precautions, which are applied throughout the hospital. All personnel should strongly consider vaccination for hepatitis B. Maintenance of the cardiac catheterization laboratory environment includes appropriate cleaning, limitation of traffic, and adequate ventilation. In an SCAI survey, members recommended an update on guidelines for infection control in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The following revision of the original 1992 guidelines is written specifically to address the increased utilization of the catheterization laboratory as an interventional suite with device implantation. In this update, infection protection is divided into sections on the patient, the laboratory personnel, and the laboratory environment. Additionally, specific CDC recommendation sections highlight recommendations from other published guidelines.

Stone JA, Arthur HM, Anonymous00385. · Dvision of Cardiology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. · Can J Cardiol. · Pubmed #16292364 No free full text.

Abstract: In 2004, the Canadian Association of Cardiac Rehabilitation published the second edition of its Canadian Guidelines for Cardiac Rehabilitation and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention. This set of guidelines expanded on the previous emphasis on risk stratification of patients with documented coronary artery disease and the importance of vascular protection in the prevention of recurrent cardiac events. Similarly, the section on special populations in cardiac rehabilitation was expanded, and new sections on nutrition, complementary medicine, atherosclerosis, program administration, outcomes assessment, continuous quality improvement, information technology and research opportunities were added.

Silber S, Albertsson P, Avilés FF, Camici PG, Colombo A, Hamm C, Jørgensen E, Marco J, Nordrehaug JE, Ruzyllo W, Urban P, Stone GW, Wijns W, Anonymous00028. · Kardiologische Praxis und Praxisklinik, München, Germany. <> · Eur Heart J. · Pubmed #15769784 links to  free full text

Abstract: In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly--independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.