Introduction: Trans-radial approach (TRA) is recommended over trans-femoral approach (TFA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We intended to study the effect of access on all-cause mortality. Methods and results: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized studies on patients with ACS undergoing PCI. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30-days. The secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACE) as defined by the study, net adverse clinical event (NACE), non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, stent thrombosis, study-defined major bleeding, and minor bleeding, vascular complications, hematoma, pseudoaneurysm, non-access site bleeding, need for transfusion, access site cross-over, contrast volume, procedure duration, and hospital stay duration. We studied 20,122 ACS patients, including 10,037 and 10,085 patients undergoing trans-radial and trans-femoral approaches, respectively. We found mortality benefit in patients with ACS for the trans-radial approach [(1.7% vs. 2.3%; RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62–0.91; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%). Out of 10,465 patients with STEMI, 5,189 patients had TRA and 5,276 had TFA procedures. A similar benefit was observed in patients with STEMI alone [(2.3% vs. 3.3%; RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.56–0.90; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%). We observed reduced MACE, NACE, major bleeding, vascular complications, and pseudoaneurysms. No difference in re-infarction, stroke, and serious bleeding requiring blood transfusions were noted. We noticed a small decrease in contrast volume(ml) {mean difference (95% CI): −4.6 [−8.5 to −0.7]}, small but significantly increase in procedural time {mean difference (95% CI) 1.2 [0.1 to 2.3]}and fluoroscopy time {mean difference (95% CI) 0.8 [0.3 to1.4] min} in the trans-radial group. Conclusion: TRA has significantly reduced 30-day all-cause mortality among patients undergoing PCI for ACS. TRA should be the preferred vascular access in patients with ACS.

The balloon expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) showed encouraging results regarding residual aortic regurgitation (AR) from multiple observational studies. The newly designed Myval Octacor has been introduced recently, aiming for a reduction in AR and improved performance. The focus of this study is to report the incidence of AR using the validated quantitative Videodensitometry angiography technology (qLVOT-AR%) in the first in human use of the Myval Octacor THV system. We report on the first in human use of the Myval Octacor THV system in 125 patients in 18 Indian centres. Independent retrospective analysis of the final aortograms following implantation of the Myval Octacor was performed using the CAAS-A-Valve software. AR is reported as a regurgitation fraction. The previously validated cutoff values have been used to identify ≥moderate AR (RF% >17%), mild (6% < RF% ≤17%), and none or trace AR (RF% ≤ 6%). Final aortogram was analysable for 103 patients (84.4%) among the 122 available aortograms. 64 (62%) patients, had tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), 38 (37%) with bicuspid AV (BAV), and one with unicuspid AV. The median absolute RF% was 2% [1, 6], moderate or more AR incidence was 1.9%, mild AR in 20.4%, and none or trace AR in 77.7%. The two cases with RF% >17% were in the BAV group. The initial results of Myval Octacor using quantitative angiography-derived regurgitation fraction demonstrated a favourable outcome regarding residual AR, possibly due to improved device design. Results must be confirmed in a larger randomised study, including other imaging modalities.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the leading cause of mortality in India. Residual risk exists in patients receiving optimal guideline-directed medical therapy. Possession of certain somatic mutations, at a variant allele frequency of ≥ 2% in peripheral blood, driving clonal expansion in the absence of cytopenias and dysplastic hematopoiesis is defined as clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP). Recently, it was found that carriers of CHIP had a higher risk to have coronary artery disease (CAD) and early-onset myocardial infarction. Association of CHIP with heart failure and valvular heart diseases is increasingly being considered. The common link that connects CHIP mutations and CVDs is inflammation leading to increased expression of cytokines and chemokines. We intended to do a systematic review about the association of CHIP mutations and CVD along with identifying specific CHIP mutations involved in increasing the risk of having CVDs. We performed an extensive literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Out of 302 articles, we narrowed it down to 10 studies based on our pre-specified criteria. The methodology adopted for the identification of CHIP mutations in the selected studies included – whole-exome sequencing (n = 3), whole-genome analysis (n = 1), transcriptome profiling analysis (n = 1), whole-genome analysis (n = 1), and single-cell RNA-sequencing (n = 1). We found that the available literature suggested an association between CHIP and CVD. The most commonly described CHIP mutations in patients with CVD are DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1, TP53, JAK2, and SF3B. We further analyzed the commonly mutated CHIP genes using bioinformatics tools. Protein function and interaction analysis were performed using the g: Profiler and GeneMANIA online tools. The results revealed significant bio grid interactions for molecular functions, biological processes, and biological pathways. Interaction analysis showed significant physical and co-expression interactions. We conclude that there exists a significant association between CHIP mutations and CVD with DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1, TP53, JAK2, and SF3B as the commonly implicated genes. The recognition of the link between CHIP and cardiovascular events will expand our understanding of residual risk and will open up new avenues of investigation and therapeutic modalities in the management of patients with CVD.

Evidence is lacking for guiding optimal combination hypertension therapy in South Asian patients. Here we investigated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety of three commonly recommended antihypertensive dual combinations in a multicenter, single-blinded trial conducted in India. We randomized Indians aged 30–79 years (mean age, 52 years) with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150–179 mmHg on no treatment or an SBP of 140–159 mmHg on monotherapy 1:1:1 to a single-pill combination of amlodipine–perindopril, perindopril–indapamide or amlodipine–indapamide. The primary outcome was the mean change in 24-hour ambulatory SBP at 6 months. Of the 1,981 participants (42% females) enrolled in the trial, 1,637 completed a 24-hour ambulatory BP measurement. All three drug combinations produced similar large reductions in the primary outcome, namely ambulatory (~14/8 mmHg) and office (~30/14 mmHg) BPs after 6 months, such that hypertension control rates (sitting BP < 140/90 mmHg) were achieved in approximately 70% of participants in all three groups. Furthermore, no significant differences in secondary outcomes, such as mean day and night ambulatory and office BPs and hypertension control rates, were observed among the study groups. Thus, in Indian patients, amlodipine–perindopril, perindopril–indapamide and amlodipine–indapamide were all equally well tolerated and equally highly effective in reducing 24-hour ambulatory and office BPs (ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05683301).