CathMasters by CardioNerds

CardioNerds
  • 5.0 (2)
  • Health & Fitness
  • Weekly

Welcome to CardioNerds CathMasters, the podcast dedicated to advancing interventional cardiology through high-quality, evidence-based, and experience-driven education. Featuring leading experts from across the field, CathMasters democratizes access to practical interventional cardiology knowledge for fellows, early-career operators, and experienced proceduralists alike.

  1. 3d ago

    21. ACS Guidelines Question #11 with Dr. Venu Menon

    This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.  The following question refers to Section 8.2 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines. The question is asked by Johns Hopkins pre-medical undergraduate and CardioNerds Academy Intern Joshua Khorsandi, answered first by University of Wisconsin cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Shikha Jha, and then by expert faculty Dr. Venu Menon. Dr. Menon is the Section Head of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, and Program Director of Cardiology Fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He is the Mehdi Razavi Endowed Chair and Professor of Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. He was also a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee. Question Answer QuestionAnswer A 58-year-old man with a past medical history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, schizophrenia, atrial fibrillation (on apixaban), and prior tobacco use presents to the emergency department with chest tightness. ECG shows ST elevations in leads II, III, and aVF with reciprocal depressions in leads I and aVL. Emergency coronary angiography demonstrates 100% occlusion of the proximal RCA, and he undergoes PCI. Transthoracic echocardiogram afterward reveals normal LV function with inferior hypokinesis. On day 2, the patient experienced lightheadedness and has frequent melanic stools. His hemoglobin returns at 6 gm/dL (initial hemoglobin 11 g/dL). He undergoes EGD and colonoscopy with successful endoscopic treatment of a small gastric ulcer. True or False: it is reasonable to administer 3-4 units of packed red blood cells for a goal Hb ≥ 10 g/dL. True False Explanation The correct answer is True – it would be reasonable to administer 3-4 units of packed red blood cells for a goal Hb ≥ 10 g/dL. Anemia is common in patients with ACS and is associated with worse short- and long-term outcomes. Anemia is associated with adverse outcomes irrespective of whether the anemia is chronic and due to comorbid conditions, or acute and the result of bleeding related to antithrombotic therapy and/or invasive procedures. The adverse effects of anemia may be due to decreased myocardial oxygen delivery, increased myocardial oxygen demand due to increased cardiac output, or the avoidance of potentially beneficial antithrombotic drugs and/or procedures. Randomized trials in medically ill patients and those undergoing cardiac surgery have demonstrated similar or better outcomes with a restrictive transfusion strategy (targeting a blood hemoglobin level around 8 g/dL) than with a liberal transfusion strategy (targeting a blood hemoglobin level around 10 g/dL). However, randomized trial evidence for populations with ACS suggests possible clinical benefit for a more liberal transfusion strategy targeting a hemoglobin level above 10 g/dL compared with targeting a hemoglobin level above 7 g/dL to 8 g/dL The MINT (Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion) trial randomly assigned 3,504 patients with acute STEMI or NSTEMI and anemia with a blood hemoglobin level of 10 g/dL in patients with ACS and acute or chronic anemia to reduce cardiovascular events. Main Takeaway In patients with ACS and acute or chronic anemia, blood transfusion to achieve a hemoglobin level of more than 10 g/dL may be reasonable to reduce cardiovascular events. Guideline Loc. Section 10.2

  2. 4d ago

    20. ACS Guidelines Question #10 with Dr. Venu Menon

    This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.  The following question refers to Section 9.2 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines. The question is asked by Johns Hopkins pre-medical undergraduate and CardioNerds Academy Intern Joshua Khorsandi, answered first by Washington University cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Colin Martz, and then by expert faculty Dr. Venu Menon. Dr. Menon is the Section Head of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, and Program Director of Cardiology Fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He is the Mehdi Razavi Endowed Chair and Professor of Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. He was also a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee. Question Answer QuestionAnswer A 72-year-old woman with past medical history significant for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and rheumatoid arthritis is brought to the emergency department by EMS for chest pain and found to have an anterior STEMI. Coronary angiography reveals 100% occlusion of her proximal LAD. During revascularization, she develops complete heart block, so a temporary transvenous pacing wire is inserted. After the PCI, she is monitored in the CCU. Three days later, she continues to have an intermittent high-grade AV block along with shortness of breath. Transthoracic echocardiogram demonstrates mildly reduced LV function with anterior and anteroseptal hypokinesis. What is the best next step? A Continue to monitor with temporary transvenous pacer B Permanent pacemaker implantation C Start dopamine infusion D Administer atropine as needed Explanation The correct answer is B – permanent pacemaker implantation. Patients with STEMI with second- or third-degree atrioventricular blocks have higher in-hospital mortality than those without high-degree atrioventricular blocks. Patients who present with ACS with complete heart block have a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, ventricular arrhythmia, and death. In a contemporary cohort of patients with AMI, the incidence of high-degree atrioventricular block has decreased from 4.2% to 2.1%; however, increased morbidity and mortality remain despite reperfusion therapy in those with high-degree atrioventricular block. A pooled analysis of 30,000 patients found that high-degree atrioventricular block, asystole, and electromechanical dissociation are infrequent complications of NSTEMI but are associated with increased short-term mortality. High-degree atrioventricular block is not considered to be responsible for the increased mortality but is a surrogate marker of larger infarct size. Temporary pacemaker insertion in the setting of ACS in patients with high-degree atrioventricular blocks and other pacer indications has been found to improve post-discharge survival. Permanent pacemaker insertion is recommended with unresolved high-degree atrioventricular block that persists >72 hours. The 2025 ACS guidelines give a Class 1 recommendation (LOE B-NR) for permanent pacing in patients presenting with an AMI with sustained evidence of second-degree Mobitz type II atrioventricular block, high-grade atrioventricular block, alternating bundle-branch block, or third-degree atrioventricular block (persistent orinfranodal). This patient has had more than 72 hours of ongoing high-grade heart block post-MI. Continuous use of temporary transvenous pacing (answer choice A), dopamine infusion (answer choice C), or atropine (answer choice D) will not permanently treat the bradyarrhythmia and hence none of these answers represents the next best treatment option for the patient. Main Takeaway In patients presenting with an AMI with sustained (i.e. >72 hours) evidence of second-degree Mobitz type II atrioventricular block, high-grade atrioventricular block, alternating bundle branch block or third-degree atrioventricular block (persistent or infra-nodal), permanent pacing is indicated. Guideline Loc. Section 9.2

  3. 5d ago

    19. ACS Guidelines Question #9 with Dr. Venu Menon

    This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.  The following question refers to Section 9.2 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines. The question is asked by Johns Hopkins pre-medical undergraduate and CardioNerds Academy Intern Joshua Khorsandi, answered first by University of Wisconsin cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Shikha Jha, and then by expert faculty Dr. Venu Menon. Dr. Menon is the Section Head of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, and Program Director of Cardiology Fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He is the Mehdi Razavi Endowed Chair and Professor of Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. He was also a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee. Question Answer QuestionAnswer A 74-year-old man with past medical history significant for hyperlipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, tobacco use, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease presents to the emergency department with two days of chest tightness and worsening shortness of breath at rest. He is found to have ST elevations in the anterolateral leads. Emergent coronary angiography demonstrates 90% stenosis of proximal to mid LAD and he is treated with two drug-eluting stents. Transthoracic echocardiograms during hospitalization showed an LVEF of 25% with anterior and apical wall motion abnormalities. He is discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy along with metoprolol, valsartan, spironolactone, SGLT2 inhibitor, and rosuvastatin. At follow-up 3 months later, he reports home BP readings in 90s/50s mm Hg with intermittent shortness of breath and lightheadedness. Blood pressure in the office is 92/54 mmHg. ECG shows normal sinus rhythm with anterior Q waves, a narrow QRS, and no acute ST-segment or T-wave changes.  Repeat transthoracic echocardiogram shows an LVEF of 30%. What is the most appropriate next step? A Switch valsartan to sacubitril-valsartan B Consider implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement C Consider cardiac resynchronization therapy D Consider additional cardiac rehabilitation sessions Explanation The correct answer is B – consider implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement. Generally, arrhythmic complications increase both morbidity and mortality rates in patients after ACS. Patients who present with AMI with reduced LVEF (≤40%) have increased risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation, bradyarrhythmias, and ventricular arrhythmias. Ventricular arrhythmias are common after ACS and more common in patients with reduced LVEF. The MADIT II trial (Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial) demonstrated a 31% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.51-0.93]) for prophylactic implantation of a cardiac defibrillator in patients with an LVEF ≤30% who were at least 30 days after MI or 3 months after revascularization for MI and had an anticipated life expectancy longer than 1 year. A mortality benefit for prophylactic ICD implantation has also been shown in patients with an LVEF ≤35% and New York Heart Association class II or III HF symptoms, as well as in patients with inducible ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation and an LVEF ≤40%. This patient has an LVEF of 48 hours and within 40 days post-MI to improve survival (LOE 2a, LOE C-EO). Some may wonder about the use of a temporary wearable cardioverter-defibrillator after the initial presentation. In the VEST trial, this strategy did not significantly reduce the primary endpoint, a composite of sudden death or death from ventricular tachyarrhythmias at 90 days) in patients with AMI and LVEF ≤ 35%. Notably, there was a lower incidence of death from any cause in the wearable vest group compared to the no-device group and overall, greater benefit was seen in those who were compliant with the device. As such, use of a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator could be considered in high-risk patients with reduced LVEF as a bridge to consideration for the need for an ICD. Per the guidelines, in patients early after MI, usefulness of a temporary wearable cardioverter-defibrillator is uncertain in patients with an LVEF ≤35% to improve survival (COR 2b, LOE B-R). Main Takeaway In patients post MI, implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) implantation is recommended in selected patients with an LVEF of less than or equal to 40% at least 40 days post MI and at least 90 days post revascularization to reduced death. Guideline Loc. Section 9.2

  4. 6d ago

    18. ACS Guidelines Question #8 with Dr. Venu Menon

    This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.  The following question refers to Section 9.1 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines. The question is asked by Johns Hopkins pre-medical undergraduate and CardioNerds Academy Intern Joshua Khorsandi, answered first by Washington University cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Colin Martz, and then by expert faculty Dr. Venu Menon. Dr. Menon is the Section Head of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, and Program Director of Cardiology Fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He is the Mehdi Razavi Endowed Chair and Professor of Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. He was also a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee. Question Answer QuestionAnswer A 65-year-old female with no significant prior cardiac history presents to the emergency department with 3 days of chest tightness associated with shortness of breath. ECG demonstrates anterior ST-segment elevation with reciprocal depressions. Coronary angiography reveals 100% occlusion of the mid left anterior descending artery. She undergoes PCI of the LAD. Two days later, she develops worsening shortness of breath. Her HR is 115 and BP 95/50. Lungs are clear on auscultation. Cardiac examination is significant for a harsh systolic murmur at the left sternal border with a palpable thrill. Transthoracic echocardiogram showed ventricular septal rupture with left-to-right shunt and Qp:Qs estimated at 2.5:1. What is the best next step? A Continue medical management B Proceed with repeat coronary angiogram and right heart catheterization with shunt run C Percutaneous ventricular septal defect closure D Intra-aortic balloon pump placement and cardiac surgical consultation Explanation The correct answer is D – placement of an intra-aortic balloon pump and CT surgical consultation. Timely reperfusion therapy has reduced the incidence of mechanical complications (ventricular septal rupture, mitral valve insufficiency due to papillary muscle infarction or rupture, or free wall rupture) after AMI. Although occasionally found incidentally, mechanical complications commonly present with recurrent or refractory chest pain or a new murmur accompanied by disproportionate heart failure, cardiogenic shock, or sudden cardiac death on clinical presentation within the first week after an AMI. Medical therapy alone is associated with high risk of early death; definitive surgical correction is frequently the treatment of choice. Mortality rates with surgery are highest in subjects with cardiogenic shock and in those requiring early emergency/urgent intervention after AMI. Observed mortality rates following delayed surgery (>7 days) are lower but patient selection and survivor bias contribute to this observation. The 2025 ACS guidelines give a Class 2a, LOE B-NR recommendation for the use of short-term MCS devices in patients with mechanical complications of ACS for hemodynamic stabilization and bridge to surgery. The availability of temporary MCS devices has led to increasing trends for delayed surgery due to concerns for the initial degree of extensive tissue destruction. Delayed surgical intervention may enable hemodynamic stabilization, lead to recovery of end-organ injury, and promote infarct tissue healing and maturation that could facilitate definitive repair. Percutaneous approaches toward repair have been used in patients with prohibitive surgical risk or contraindications to surgery as a primary or temporizing option in the setting of acute mitral regurgitation and ventricular septal rupture andremain an evolving area of investigation. This patient is not at prohibitive risk for surgery. Select patients with mechanical complications of ACS may be considered for cardiac transplantation or durable LVAD as a primary or bailout treatment strategy to improve survival. No RCTs evaluate the role of transfer of patients with mechanical complications after MI to dedicated centers with cardiac surgical expertise. Although overall surgical mortality is approximately 40%, it remains the treatment strategy of choice. Hemodynamic deterioration is unpredictable and can be precipitous in previously stable subjects. Consequently, transfer to a Level 1 cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) with access to various temporary MCS devices and multidisciplinary experienced teams of surgical, interventional, HF, and palliative care specialists is recommended. The guidelines give a Class 1, LOE C recommendation for management of patients with mechanical complications of ACS at centers with cardiac surgical expertise. Main Takeaway Patients with mechanical complications of ACS should be managed in a center with cardiac surgical expertise. In such patients, short-term MCS devices are reasonable for hemodynamical stabilization as a bridge to surgery. Guideline Loc. Section 9.1, Figure 9

  5. Oct 26

    17. ACS Guidelines Question #7 with Dr. Venu Menon

    This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.  The following question refers to Section 8.2 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines. The question is asked by Johns Hopkins pre-medical undergraduate and CardioNerds Academy Intern Joshua Khorsandi, answered first by University of Wisconsin cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Shikha Jha, and then by expert faculty Dr. Venu Menon. Dr. Menon is the Section Head of Clinical Cardiology, Director of the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit, and Program Director of Cardiology Fellowship at the Cleveland Clinic. He is the Mehdi Razavi Endowed Chair and Professor of Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine. He was also a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee. Question Answer QuestionAnswer A 72-year-old gentleman with past medical history significant for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, and tobacco use is brought to the ED with chief complaint of chest tightness. He is found to have ST elevations in leads V1 to V4 and is taken for emergency coronary angiography, which demonstrates 99% proximal LAD occlusion. During the procedure, he becomes hypotensive (BP 74/55 mm Hg) and tachycardic (HR 122 bpm). Norepinephrine is initiated. Right heart catheterization demonstrates elevated left and right-sided filling pressures with low cardiac index. Besides immediate revascularization, which of the following would be the best next step? A Cannulate for VA-ECMO B Placement of microaxial intravascular flow pump C Administration of intravenous fluid D Placement of an intraaortic balloon pump Explanation The correct answer is B – Placement of microaxial intravascular flow pump. Cardiogenic shock is estimated to occur in approximately 10% of patients with STEMI and is associated with an early mortality rate of 40% to 50%. Several types of devices for temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) are available and have been studied in patients with cardiogenic shock, with variable efficacy and increased risk of vascular complications. IABP counterpulsation improves coronary perfusion and reduces cardiac afterload. It is relatively easy to use and has a smaller insertion profile (8 French), which is associated with lower rates of vascular access site complications when compared with other MCS devices. Left ventricular percutaneous microaxial flow pumps unload the LV by draining blood from the LV and pumping it to the ascending aorta. They are dependent on adequate right ventricular function to fill the LV and require adequate oxygenation of blood. VA-ECMO provides both blood flow and gas exchange, providing full cardiopulmonary bypass, but increases afterload. Randomized trials of MCS devices remain challenging to conduct due to relative lack of equipoise on the part of treating physicians, leading to selective patient enrollment and limiting the generalizability of study results. The DanGer-Shock randomized 360 patients presenting with STEMI and cardiogenic shock of 24 hours duration to either microaxial flow pump or standard of care. The trial demonstrated a 26% reduction of all-cause mortality at 180 days (HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.55-0.99]; P = 0.04; absolute risk reduction, 12.7%; number needed to treat = 8) compared with standard of care. However, this came at the cost of increased risk of complications like bleeding, limb ischemia and renal replacement therapy in the microaxial flow pump group. In light of this and other trial data, the guidelines give a Class 2a, LOE B recommendation for the use of a microaxial intravascular flow pump in patients with STEMI complicated by severe or refractory cardiogenic shock to reduce mortality. These patients should be noncomatose and have adequate peripheral vasculature to accommodate large-bore access. Answer choice A is not correct as the use of VA-ECMO cannulation in this setting has been given a class 3 recommendation for lack of benefit. VA-ECMO has not been shown to reduce death compared with medical therapy alone in patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of MI but increases major bleeding and vascular complications. In the absence of severe concomitant respiratory failure requiring oxygenation support, this strategy is not indicated in the patient described here. Further fluid resuscitation (answer choice C) is not likely to be helpful as right heart catheterization demonstrated elevated filling pressures. Placement of an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) is not the next best step.  The IABP-SHOCK II trial, which randomized patients with acute MI and severe cardiogenic shock to IABP or medical therapy showed no differences at 30 days or at long-term follow-up in the primary outcome of all-cause death. The use of IABP has a class 3 recommendation for lack of benefit in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to acute myocardial infarction. Main Takeaway In selected patients with STEMI and severe or refractory cardiogenic shock, insertion of microaxial intravascular flow pump is reasonable to reduce death in a noncomatose patient with adequate vascular access. Guideline Loc. Section 8.2

  6. Oct 19

    16. AngioClub: A Nightmare in the Left Main: Atherectomy, Perforation, and Bailout

    CathMasters (Drs. Amit Goyal, Daniel Ambinder, and Nazli Okumus), with guests Drs. Mina Fares, Fariyal Cheema, and Jeremy Langrish discuss the management of an unprotected distal left main (LM) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) complicated by an Ellis grade III coronary perforation. An 88-year-old man presented with a non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), heavily calcified critical distal LM disease (culprit), and a chronic total occlusion (CTO) of the right coronary artery (RCA). The team walks through heart-team decision-making for palliative-intent LM PCI, the choice to forgo upfront mechanical circulatory support (MCS), rotational atherectomy and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)–guided calcium modification, a provisional LM-to-left anterior descending (LAD) stent strategy, and the real-time, stepwise rescue of a large perforation — balloon tamponade, pericardiocentesis with autotransfusion, and a covered stent landed at the LAD ostium to spare the circumflex. CathMasters is for educational purposes only. CathMasters is for educational purposes only. Music by Elijah K from Pixabay Media [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .ose-embedpress-responsive{ width: 600px!important; height: 600px!important; max-height: 600px!important; } [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] iframe{ width: 600px!important; height: 600px!important; max-height: 600px!important; } [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .embedpress-yt-subscribe iframe{ height: 100%!important; } [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .ose-youtube > iframe{ height: 600px!important; width: 600px!important; max-width: 100%!important; } [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .ose-youtube{ height: 600px!important; width: 600px!important; } [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .ose-giphy img{ height: 600px!important; width: 600px!important; } [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .ose-google-docs img{ height: 600px!important; width: 600px!important; } [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .ose-embedpress-responsive.ose-google-photos{ height: 100% !important; max-height: 100% !important; } [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .embera-embed-responsive-provider-gettyimages, [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .embera-embed-responsive-provider-gettyimages iframe, [data-source-id="source-02f5e66f-a4cc-4e23-acb1-36934d7f8546"] .getty{ width: 600px!important; height: 600px!important; max-height: 600px!important; max-width: 100%!important; } Pearls “ST elevation in aVR” is a barometer of global distress, not a culprit locator. aVR ST elevation with diffuse ST depression signals left main/three-vessel disease or circumferential subendocardial supply–demand mismatch; only roughly 10–25% of such patients have an acute thrombotic occlusion. In this case, the changes resolved once pain/hemodynamics normalized. After CHIP-BCIS3, mechanical support is a selective — not reflexive — decision. In complex high-risk PCI with ejection fraction ≤35%, routine elective left-ventricular unloading with a microaxial flow pump did not improve the composite outcome and showed a signal toward higher cardiovascular death. A hemodynamically stable patient with preserved EF, as here, generally does not warrant upfront support — and a 14-French femoral sheath carries real risk in a frail 88-year-old. “The last 5% can guarantee you a 100% complication.” For a disease-free, favorably angulated circumflex ostium (Medina 1,1,0), the stepwise provisional single-stent LM-to-LAD strategy is the default and reduces target-lesion revascularization compared with upfront two-stent approaches. Define the procedural goal first — here, symptom relief, not survival — which justified leaving the RCA CTO untouched. Ellis III perforation: tamponade buys time, the covered stent provides the definitive seal — and post-dilation is mandatory. Immediate balloon inflation at/across the perforation stabilizes the patient while the team mobilizes; a polytetrafluoroethylene/polyurethane covered stent seals large-vessel perforation, but residual “endoleak” around the stent is common and must be addressed with high-pressure post-dilation before reaching for a second stent. In a left main bifurcation perforation, land the covered stent at the LAD ostium to spare the circumflex — and manage the bleed in parallel. Deliberately avoiding the distal LM/circumflex preserves flow and allows full wall apposition; keep an LM-sized covered stent on standby as bailout. Pericardiocentesis with autotransfusion (cell saver) is salvage therapy for hemorrhagic tamponade — heparinize each collection bag (10,000 units) so the perfusionist can re-infuse the patient’s own blood. Notes 1. How should the high-risk ECG pattern of aVR ST elevation with diffuse ST depression be interpreted? The pattern reflects a net ST vector toward aVR from widespread subendocardial injury; it is associated with left main or three-vessel disease and increased mortality, but has only ~10–14% positive predictive value for acute occlusive myocardial infarction. Broad differential includes nonocclusive coronary disease and demand/supply mismatch (hypotension, sepsis, severe anemia, aortic stenosis) and repolarization abnormalities; resolution with pain relief or hemodynamic correction argues against acute occlusion. In this NSTEMI presentation, the pattern correctly flagged critical distal LM disease as the culprit, confirmed angiographically. 2. How does the heart team frame revascularization in a frail elderly patient with complex disease? The intent was explicitly palliative — symptom relief rather than prognostic gain — which removed the RCA CTO from consideration and focused treatment on the LM. The patient was deemed a non-surgical candidate; after continued angina despite optimal medical therapy, the multidisciplinary team, patient, and family accepted PCI with a frankly stated 5–10% risk of a serious periprocedural complication. Procedural planning emphasized “planning for success”: daytime timing, a full team brief, and preparation for complex PCI with calcium-modification algorithms available. Shared-decision making with the patient and their family guided by their own goals is paramount in these complex cases. 3. When is mechanical circulatory support indicated for high-risk PCI? CHIP-BCIS3 randomized 300 patients with complex disease and EF ≤35% to elective microaxial flow pump (Impella CP) versus standard care; routine unloading did not improve the hierarchical composite outcome and trended toward higher cardiovascular death. A CHIP-BCIS3 hemodynamic substudy showed the pump reduced inotrope use but increased loss of pulse pressure and did not prevent myocardial stunning. Randomized evidence does not support routine MCS outside cardiogenic shock; selection should weigh EF, baseline blood pressure, lesion predictability, and access risk. This patient — stable, normal biventricular function — had PCI without upfront support, with femoral access and bailout strategies kept in mind. Enjoy CathMastes Ep 4 (Data to Delivery: CHIP-BCIS3 — Microaxial Flow Pump Support for High-Risk Complex PCI with Dr. Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula) to learn more about CHIP-BCIS3. 4. How is heavily calcified left main disease modified and assessed? Left main atherectomy can be performed from the radial or femoral artery. Adequate support and appropriate guide selection are key. In this case, the setup was: right radial, 7.5-French sheathless guide for maximal support; workhorse wire and microcatheter exchanged for a dedicated 0.009-inch rotational wire; upfront rotational atherectomy chosen because the stenosis was too tight to safely balloon or image first. Burr selection: aim for a burr-to-artery ratio of ~0.5–0.6; a relatively larger burr (here 1.75 mm) can be chosen when debulking nodular calcium rather than simply creating a channel. Note: the recording’s “no more than two-thirds” rule of thumb is more liberal than the published 0.5–0.6 ratio. Technique: rotational speed ~160,000 rpm (within the safe 135,000–180,000 rpm range), short runs of 10–15 seconds (≤30 s) with a pecking motion and rest between runs, avoiding decelerations >5,000 rpm. No-reflow prevention: continuous flush of heparinized saline with verapamil and nitroglycerin in the bag or vasodilators through the manifold between runs; left-sided atherectomy rarely needs temporary pacing, so pacing wires were abandoned for LM cases (a small atropine dose is used for large dominant RCA atherectomy instead). Aminophylline pre-treatment can also mitigate atherectomy-related bradyarrhythmias. IVUS findings guided the plan: distal LM was the tightest concentric calcium with fractures at 2, 7, and 11 o’clock; os

  7. Sep 23

    15. ACS Guidelines Question #6 with Dr. Binita Shah

    This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.  The following question refers to Section 4.4 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines. The question is asked by Thomas Jefferson medical student and CardioNerds Academy Intern Dr. Grace Qiu, answered first by University of Miami cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Saahil Jumkhawala, and then by expert faculty Dr. Binita Shah. Dr. Binita Shah is an associate professor of medicine, interventional cardiologist, Director for research in Interventional Cardiology, and Director of the Department of Medicine Clinical Investigator Track at NYU. She is also an associate director of interventional cardiology and director of the transcatheter valve program at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. She was a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee. Question Answer QuestionAnswer A 64-year-old male with a history of hypertension and dyslipidemia presents to the emergency department with crescendo angina. His ECG shows ST-segment depression in leads V4–V6, and high-sensitivity troponin levels are significantly elevated. A diagnosis of NSTE-ACS is made, and the patient is scheduled for an early invasive strategy with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Which of the following parenteral anticoagulants is NOT recommended for use as a standalone agent during the PCI procedure itself? A Fondaparinux B Bivalirudin C Unfractionated Heparin D Enoxaparin Explanation The correct answer is A. The choice of parenteral anticoagulation for a patient with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is governed by both efficacy in preventing ischemic events and the safety profile regarding bleeding.The following are the recommended Agents for PCI: Unfractionated Heparin (UFH): In patients with NSTE-ACS, intravenous unfractionated heparin (UFH) is useful to reduce ischemic events (Class 1, LOE C-EO). Bivalirudin: This direct thrombin inhibitor is recommended as an alternative to UFH. In patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI, bivalirudin may be reasonable as an alternative to UFH to reduce bleeding and mortality (Class 2b, LOE B-R) Enoxaparin: In patients with ACS, intravenous enoxaparin may be considered as an alternative to UFH at the time of PCI to reduce ischemic events (Class 2B, LOE B) In patients with ACS, fondaparinux should not be used to support PCI because of the risk of catheter thrombosis (Class 3: Harm; LOE B-R). The primary reason is due to the risk of catheter thrombosis. Large-scale trials (notably the OASIS-5 trial) demonstrated that using fondaparinux alone during PCI led to a significantly higher rate of thrombus formation on the diagnostic and therapeutic catheters. In the OASIS-5 trial, an increase was observed in the rate of catheter-related thrombus with fondaparinux compared with enoxaparin (0.9% versus 0.4%). Similar results were observed in the OASIS-6 trial, in which a higher rate of guiding-catheter thrombosis and more coronary complications with fondaparinux were observed when used during PCI. Main Takeaway – Parenteral anticoagulation for a patient with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS) undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is governed by both efficacy in preventing ischemic events and the safety profile regarding bleeding. Expert Suggestions When to consider AC other than UFH prior to and during PCI.Considerations around patients with HIT. Guideline Loc. Section 4.4

  8. Sep 19

    14. ACS Guidelines Question #5 with Dr. Binita Shah

    This episode is part of our comprehensive Decipher the Guidelines Series covering the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.  The following question refers to Section 4.3 of the 2025 ACS Guidelines. The question is asked by Thomas Jefferson medical student and CardioNerds Academy Intern Dr. Grace Qiu, answered first by Cleveland Clinic interventional and structural cardiology fellow and member of the CardioNerds Interventional Cardiology Council Dr. Eunice Dugan, and then by expert faculty Dr. Binita Shah. Dr. Binita Shah is an associate professor of medicine, interventional cardiologist, Director for research in Interventional Cardiology, and Director of the Department of Medicine Clinical Investigator Track at NYU. She is also an associate director of interventional cardiology and director of the transcatheter valve program at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System. She was a member of the 2025 ACS Guidelines writing committee. Question Answer QuestionAnswer A 64-year-old woman with NSTE-ACS is taken to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. She is P2Y12 inhibitor-naive as she was unable to tolerate oral intake due to severe nausea and vomiting. Coronary angiography reveals a high-grade, thrombotic lesion in the mid-Right Coronary Artery. The interventionalist decides to initiate an intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor before proceeding with PCI. Which of the following is the most appropriate management strategy? A Administer Cangrelor as a 30 mcg/kg IV bolus followed by a 4 mcg/kg/min infusion for at least 2 hours or the duration of PCI, whichever is longer. B Administer Eptifibatide (GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor) as a routine double-bolus followed by an infusion to replace the need for P2Y12 inhibition. C Delay the procedure for 2 hours to allow for the administration and absorption of 600 mg of oral Clopidogrel. D Administer Cangrelor as a 180 mcg/kg bolus followed by a 2 mcg/kg/min infusion for exactly 1 hour. Explanation The correct answer is A.  Cangrelor is the only intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor currently available. It is a direct-acting, intravenous antagonist of the P2Y12 receptor characterized by rapid and potent platelet inhibitory effects, with restoration of platelet function occurring within 1 hour of drug discontinuation. It also has a very short half-life (3–6 minutes).Among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have not received a P2Y12 inhibitor, intravenous cangrelor may be reasonable to reduce periprocedural ischemic events (Class 2B; LOE B-R). Dosing Strategy:Bolus: 30mcg/kg IV bolus administered rapidly (under 1 minute) before PCI begins.Infusion: 4 mcg/kg/min IV infusion.Duration: The infusion must run for at least 2 hours or for the duration of the PCI, whichever is longer. Transition to Oral Therapy:Ticagrelor: 180mg can be given at any time (during or after the infusion).Prasugrel/Clopidogrel: loading dose must be given immediately after the infusion is stopped. Giving these earlier can lead to a drug-drug interaction where the Cangrelor prevents the active metabolite from binding to the receptor. In the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial, cangrelor was studied versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for acute or stable coronary syndromes. Cangrelor was administered as an intravenous bolus prior to PCI followed by an infusion for at least 2 hours or for the duration of the procedure, whichever was longer. In the control arm, clopidogrel was administered as a 600- or 300-mg loading dose immediately before or after PCI. At 48 hours, the primary endpoint of all- cause death, MI, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis was significantly reduced with cangrelor, with similar effects observed among those presenting with NSTE-ACS or STEMI. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors are parenterally administered drugs that block platelet aggregation by preventing platelet cross-linking via fibrinogen or von Willebrand factor binding to the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor. Routine administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors before PCI is not recommended and is associated with increased bleeding without improving ischemic outcomes. (Class 3 – No Benefit). Incurrent practice, the role of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors is largely limited to adjunctive use at the time of PCI in patients with large thrombus burden or as“rescue” or “bailout” therapy in patients with PCI complications such as no-reflow or persistent or recurring thrombus at the lesion. B is incorrect. Routine “upstream” or periprocedural use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) is Class 3 (No Benefit) for most patients. Large trials (like EARLY-ACS) showed that routine GPI use significantly increases major bleeding without a proportional decrease in ischemic events compared to modern P2Y12 inhibitors.  C is incorrect. In patients with NSTE-ACS or STEMI who are already in the lab, delaying the procedure to wait for oral drug absorption is not recommended.  D is incorrect. The correct bolus is 30mcg/kg. Cangrelor must be infused for at least 2 hours or the duration of the PCI, whichever is longer. Stopping at 1 hour would leave a “gap” in platelet inhibition before an oral agent can take effect. Because Cangrelor’s half-life is only 3–6 minutes, a premature stop increases the risk of acute stent thrombosis. Main Takeaway Cangrelor may be reasonable among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have not received a P2Y12 inhibitor to reduce periprocedural ischemic events (Class 2b, LOE B-R). Guideline Loc. Section 4.3.3-4.3.4

See All (22)

Ratings & Reviews

5
out of 5
2 Ratings

About

Welcome to CardioNerds CathMasters, the podcast dedicated to advancing interventional cardiology through high-quality, evidence-based, and experience-driven education. Featuring leading experts from across the field, CathMasters democratizes access to practical interventional cardiology knowledge for fellows, early-career operators, and experienced proceduralists alike.

Information

You Might Also Like