Abrupt vessel closure (AVC) is a complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is defined as the sudden cessation of forward coronary blood flow due to a variety of mechanisms. The incidence of AVC has markedly decreased from approximately 3.0% in the early era to about 0.3% today. Nevertheless, cardiovascular interventionists must remain prepared to manage AVC effectively, given its significant impact on clinical outcomes.AVC can arise from several mechanisms, including dissection, intramural hematoma, intracoronary thrombosis, air embolism, vasospasm, and no-reflow. The clinical impact of AVC varies depending on the extent of myocardium affected, ranging from asymptomatic events or transient ischemic chest pain to cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. Both a general approach for stabilizing hemodynamic consequences and an etiology-specific management strategy are essential. Hasty decision-making may worsen the situation, whereas a structured approach—focused on hemodynamic stabilization, logical diagnostic processes, and targeted interventions—can improve outcomes. In this narrative review, we describe the mechanisms underlying each etiology, outline mechanism-specific management strategies, and discuss general approaches to managing patients with AVC through logical diagnostic and treatment processes. We hope this review offers valuable insights into this uncommon but significant complication and enhances readers’ skills in managing AVC more effectively during PCI.

Limited data exist regarding the real-world practices and clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEFs).Using nationwide registry data from South Korea, we aimed to investigate long-term outcomes and clinical practices, especially implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) implantation, in patients with reduced LVEFs at least 40 days after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Of 13,056 patients with AMI between 2011 and 2015, we analyzed 350 (median age, 66 years [interquartile range, 56-75]) who had LVEFs <40% on follow-up transthoracic echocardiogram 40 days after the index event. The primary outcome was cardiac-cause mortality at 3 years. Secondary outcomes comprised major cardiovascular events as well as outcomes defined by the use of ICDs, cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (CRT-Ds), and electrophysiology studies. Among 350 patients, 39 (11.1%) died from cardiac causes during 3 years of follow-up. Eleven (3.1%) were hospitalized for ventricular tachycardia. The rate of ICD or CRT-D implantation up to 3 years was 5.7% (20/350). Cox time-to-event analysis revealed older age, LVEF <30%, diabetes mellitus, and previous MI or revascularization as positively associated with cardiac death, whereas the use of statins and body weight <67 kg were negatively associated. This nationwide Korean registry demonstrated that only 5.7% of patients who had reduced LVEFs after 40 days of AMI underwent ICD implantations over 3 years. Considering the high mortality, concerted efforts are needed to improve clinical outcomes for patients who may have been candidates for ICD implantation.

Environmental damage affects many aspects of healthcare, from extreme weather events to evolving population disease. Singapore's healthcare sector has the world's second highest healthcare emissions per capita, hampering the nation's pledge to reduce emissions by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. In this review, we provide an overview of the impact environmental damage has on healthcare, including facilities, supply chain and human health, and examine measures to address healthcare's impact on the environment. Utilising the 'R's of sustainability - rethinking, reducing/refusing, reusing/repurposing/reprocessing, repairing, recycling and research - we have summarised the opportunities and challenges across medical disciplines. Awareness and advocacy to adopt strategies at institutional and individual levels is needed to revolutionise our environmental footprint and improve healthcare sustainability. By leveraging evidence from ongoing trials and integrating sustainable practices, our healthcare system can remain resilient against environment-driven challenges and evolving healthcare demands while minimising further impacts of environmental destruction.
Humans ; Climate Change ; Delivery of Health Care ; Singapore ; Conservation of Natural Resources ; Sustainable Development ; Environment

Stringent criteria have traditionally guided cervical clearance in trauma patients, particularly those who exhibit mid -line cervical pain or cannot undergo a reliable examination. This can sometimes result in extended periods of cervical immobilisation or necessitate the use of further imaging scans. In the absence of fractures, dislocation, or pathological subluxation on cervical computed tomography (CT) scan, cervical collar can be safely removed. We report a polytrauma case with altered consciousness, where bilateral facet fracture dislocation at the C5/C6 level was initially overlooked. CT scan of the spine revealed traumatic brain injury and lumbar vertebral fracture, and the collar was removed and proceeded with surgical stabilisation. The progress was complicated a pulmonary embolism and CT scan also identified the overlooked cervical injuries. A retrospective review of the initial scan revealed the presence of subtle signs of a small unilateral facet avulsion fragment. Our patient succumbed to his injuries. This discovery underscores the potential for pathologies to be missed with dire consequences. Our case illustrates the severe outcomes that can arise from overlooking a cervical spine injury, underscoring the importance of keeping cervical collars in place for high-risk patients until comprehensive imaging can be performed.

BACKGROUND: Current polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DESs) have fundamental issues about inflammation and delayed re-endothelializaton of the vessel wall. Substance-P (SP), which plays an important role in inflammation and endothelial cells, has not yet been applied to coronary stents. Therefore, this study compares poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA)-based everolimus-eluting stents (PLGA-EESs) versus 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC)-based SP-eluting stents (MPC-SPs) in in-vitro and in-vivo models. METHODS: The morphology of the stent surface and peptide/drug release kinetics from stents were evaluated. The invitro proliferative effect of SP released from MPC-SP is evaluated using human umbilical vein endothelial cell. Finally, the safety and efficacy of the stent are evaluated after inserting it into a pig’s coronary artery. RESULTS: Similar to PLGA-EES, MPC-SP had a uniform surface morphology with very thin coating layer thickness (2.074 lm). MPC-SP showed sustained drug release of SP for over 2 weeks. Endothelial cell proliferation was significantly increased in groups treated with SP (n = 3) compared with the control (n = 3) and those with everolimus (n = 3) (SP:118.9 ± 7.61% vs. everolimus: 64.3 ± 12.37% vs. the control: 100 ± 6.64%, p < 0.05). In the animal study, the percent stenosis was higher in MPC-SP group (n = 7) compared to PLGA-EES group (n = 7) (MPC-SP: 28.6 ± 10.7% vs. PLGAEES: 16.7 ± 6.3%, p < 0.05). MPC-SP group showed, however, lower inflammation (MPC-SP: 0.3 ± 0.26 vs. PLGAEES: 1.2 ± 0.48, p < 0.05) and fibrin deposition (MPC-SP: 1.0 ± 0.73 vs. PLGA-EES: 1.5 ± 0.59, p < 0.05) around the stent strut. MPC-SP showed more increased expression of cluster of differentiation 31, suggesting enhanced reendothelialization. CONCLUSION Compared to PLGA-EES, MPC-SP demonstrated more decreased inflammation of the vascular wall and enhanced re-endothelialization and stent coverage. Hence, MPC-SP has the potential therapeutic benefits for the treatment of coronary artery disease by solving limitations of currently available DESs.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Prescribing a P2Y12 inhibitor for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is challenging because of the risk of bleeding and ischemia. We compared the risk of ischemia and bleeding between clopidogrel and ticagrelor in elderly East Asian patients with diabetes using the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR)-V data. This study included 838 patients enrolled in the KAMIR-V who were ＞75 years, had DM, AMI, and had undergone PCI. The patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment drug. After propensity score matching, 466 patients (ticagrelor: clopidogrel=233:233) were included in the Cox regression analyses to determine the risk of bleeding and ischemia. The baseline characteristics were not different. The type of antiplatelet therapy did not affect the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type ≥2 bleeding. There was no significant difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel treatment outcomes with respect to ischemia risk. This prospective study of a Korean patient cohort (elderly Korean patients with DM) showed no differences in bleeding and ischemia risks based on the use of either ticagrelor or clopidogrel.Large scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine the optimal antiplatelet agents for these patients.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.