Background—: It is recommended that comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest should be cooled to 32° to 34°C for 12 to 24 hours. However, the optimal level of cooling is unknown. The aim of this pilot study was to obtain initial data on the effect of different levels of hypothermia. We hypothesized that deeper temperatures will be associated with better survival and neurological outcome. Methods and Results—: Patients were eligible if they had a witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from March 2008 to August 2011. Target temperature was randomly assigned to 32°C or 34°C. Enrollment was stratified on the basis of the initial rhythm as shockable or asystole. The target temperature was maintained during 24 hours followed by 12 to 24 hours of controlled rewarming. The primary outcome was survival free from severe dependence (Barthel Index score ≥60 points) at 6 months. Thirty-six patients were enrolled in the trial (26 shockable rhythm, 10 asystole), with 18 assigned to 34°C and 18 to 32°C. Eight of 18 patients in the 32°C group (44.4%) met the primary end point compared with 2 of 18 in the 34°C group (11.1%) (log-rank P =0.12). All patients whose initial rhythm was asystole died before 6 months in both groups. Eight of 13 patients with initial shockable rhythm assigned to 32°C (61.5%) were alive free from severe dependence at 6 months compared with 2 of 13 (15.4%) assigned to 34°C (log-rank P =0.029). The incidence of complications was similar in both groups except for the incidence of clinical seizures, which was lower (1 versus 11; P =0.0002) in patients assigned to 32°C compared with 34°C. On the contrary, there was a trend toward a higher incidence of bradycardia (7 versus 2; P =0.054) in patients assigned to 32°C. Although potassium levels decreased to a greater extent in patients assigned to 32°C, the incidence of hypokalemia was similar in both groups. Conclusions—: The findings of this pilot trial suggest that a lower cooling level may be associated with a better outcome in patients surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest secondary to a shockable rhythm. The benefits observed here merit further investigation in a larger trial in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with different presenting rhythms. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01155622.

Background—: Aortic dissection type A is a disease with high mortality. Iatrogenic aortic dissection after interventional procedures is infrequent, and prognostic data are scarce. Our objective was to analyze its incidence, patient profile, and long-term prognosis. Methods and Results—: Between 2000 and 2014, we retrospectively analyzed 74 patients with dissection of the ascending aorta. Clinical and procedural data were reviewed, and later, we performed a prospective clinical follow-up by telephone or in the office. The incidence of aortic dissection was 0.06%. Our patients, predominantly male (67.6%), had a mean age of 66.9±10.8 years. With multiple cardiovascular risk factors, the main reason for cardiac catheterization was an acute coronary syndrome (n=54). The complication was detected acutely in all, trying to engage the right coronary artery in 47 and the left main artery in 30 and after other maneuvers in 2, mostly complex therapeutic procedures (78.4%). A coronary artery was involved in 45 patients (60.8%). Thirty-five patients underwent an angioplasty and stent implantation; 3 had cardiac surgery; and 36 were managed conservatively. Two patients died of cardiogenic shock after the dissection. After a median follow-up of 51.2 months (range, 16.4–104.8 months), none of the remaining patients developed complications as a result of the dissection, progression, ischemia, pain, or dissection recurrence. Conclusions—: Iatrogenic catheter dissection of the aorta is a rare complication that carries an excellent short- and long-term prognosis with the adoption of a conservative approach. When a coronary artery is involved as an entry point, it usually can be safely sealed with a stent with good long-term outcomes.

Background The effectiveness of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) versus placebo and antiplatelet therapy (APT) is well established for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are mostly superior to VKA in stroke and intracranial bleeding prevention. Recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggested the non-inferiority of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) versus VKA. However, comparisons between LAAC versus placebo, APT or NOAC are lacking. The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of LAAC compared with other strategies for stroke prevention in patients with AF. Methods We pooled together all RCTs comparing warfarin with placebo, APT or NOAC in patients with AF using meta-analysis guidelines. Two major trials of LAAC were also included and a network meta-analysis was performed to compare the impact of LAAC on mortality, stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding in relation to medical treatment. Results The network meta-analysis included 19 RCTs with a total of 87 831 patients with AF receiving anticoagulants, APT, placebo or LAAC. Indirect comparison with network meta-analysis using warfarin as the common comparator revealed efficacy benefit favouring LAAC as compared with placebo (mortality: HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67, p<0.001; stroke/SE: HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.52, p<0.001) and APT (mortality: HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.91, p=0.0018; stroke/SE: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.86, p=0.017) and similar to NOAC (mortality: HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, p=0.211; stroke/SE: HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.92, p=0.969). LAAC showed comparable rates of major bleeding when compared with placebo (HR 2.33, 95% CI 0.67 to 8.09, p=0.183), APT (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.88, p=0.542) and NOAC (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94, p=0.615). Conclusions The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that LAAC is superior to placebo and APT, and comparable to NOAC for preventing mortality and stroke or SE, with similar bleeding risk in patients with non-valvular AF. However, these results should be interpreted with caution and more studies are needed to further substantiate this advantage, in view of the wide CIs with some variables in the current meta-analysis.

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)