Activity

Many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) do not receive oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. The aims of this study were to 1) document receipt of OAC among patients with a history of AF admitted with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS); and to 2) determine whether hospital admission was associated with an improvement in prescription of OAC therapy.

Using Australian data from the Cooperative National Registry of Acute Coronary Care, Guideline Adherence and Clinical Events (CONCORDANCE) and Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) registries, 1,479 patients with a history of AF presenting with an ACS were separated into two groups aspirin monotherapy/no therapy (No OAC) or oral anticoagulant ± aspirin (OAC). Clinical characteristics and in-hospital treatments and outcomes were compared.

Of 1,479 patients, 532 (36%) with a history of AF presented on OAC with the remainder receiving antiplatelet (n=580 [39%]) or no antithrombotic therapy (n=367 [25%]). Treatment with OAC prior to presentation increased during the 18 years of the study (27% to 56%, p=0.0002). Ninety-five per cent (95%) of the OAC group had a CHA2DS2-VA score >1 vs 88% of the No OAC group (p<0.001). Patients receiving OAC had a lower prevalence of bleeding risk factors than no OAC patients (p<0.001). Only 39% of this cohort was discharged on an OAC, although this increased during the observational period (26-61%, p≤0.0001).

In patients presenting with an ACS with a history of AF, receipt of OAC has improved over time but remains suboptimal. There is minimal escalation in provision of OAC therapy during hospital care, indicating missed opportunities to address this evidence practice gap.

In patients presenting with an ACS with a history of AF, receipt of OAC has improved over time but remains suboptimal. There is minimal escalation in provision of OAC therapy during hospital care, indicating missed opportunities to address this evidence practice gap.Addition of Impella on top of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has gained wide interest as it might portend improved outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock. This has been consistently reported in retrospective propensity-matched studies, case series, and meta-analyses. The pathophysiologic background is based on the mitigation of ECMO-related side effects and the additive benefit of myocardial unloading. In this perspective, thorough knowledge of these mechanisms is required to optimize the management of mechanical circulatory support with this approach and introduce best practices, as the interplay between the two devices and the implantation-explantation strategies are key for success.Surgical ventricular remodeling (SVR) is an invasive method of treating patients with heart failure who also have ischemic cardiomyopathy and reduced ejection fraction (EF). Introduced in the mid-1980s, this technique was met with varying success and relatively high morbidity and mortality despite its theoretical benefits. The development of the BioVentrix Revivent TC System (BioVentrix, Inc., San Ramon, CA) as a less-invasive method of surgical ventricular remodeling has created a novel, multidisciplinary approach to heart failure management, which necessitates multiple subspecialties. Currently in the trial phase in the United States and widely used in Europe, the positive results to date appear promising for the rapid adoption of this procedure. For the cardiac anesthesiologist, a thorough understanding of the patient population, procedural goals, and intraoperative management is essential. This overview discusses the advancement in surgical ventricular remodeling, the pertinent surgical steps of the BioVentrix Revivent TC System placement, and specific anesthetic considerations for this novel procedure.

Although American and European consensus statements advocate using the ratio of the transmitral E velocity and tissue Doppler early diastolic mitral annular velocity (E/e’) in the assessment of left-sided heart filling pressures, recent reports have questioned the reliability of this ratio to predict left atrial pressures in a variety of disease states. The authors hypothesized that there is a clinically significant correlation between E/e’ and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Retrospective cohort study.

The study comprised 733 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.

None.

PCWP and E/e’

(average of the lateral and medial annulus tissue Doppler velocities) were measured with a pulmonary artery catheter and transthoracic echocardiography during preprocedural evaluation. Patients were grouped by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50% and LVEF <50%. Spearman rank correlation, analysis of variance, and t and chi-square tests were used to analyze the data. Seventy-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. SBP-7455 research buy There was no significant correlation between E/e’

and PCWP (n = 79, Spearman r = 0.096; p = 0.3994). This correlation did not improve when ventricular function was considered (LVEF <50% n = 11, Spearman r = -0.097; p = 0.776 and LVEF ≥50% n = 68, Spearman r = 0.116; p = 0.345). There was no statistically significant difference in mean PCWP between each range of E/e’

.

A clinically relevant relationship between E/e’ and PCWP was not observed in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

A clinically relevant relationship between E/e’ and PCWP was not observed in patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Beta-blockers are recommended after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but their benefit in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unclear.

Consecutive patients discharged in sinus rhythm after STEMI between January 2010 and April 2015 were followed until December 2017. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed in 969 (99.7%, including 112 with rescue PCI) and three (0.3%) received only thrombolytic therapy without rescue PCI.

Of these 972 patients, mean age 62.6±13.5 years, 212 (21.8%) were women and 835 (85.9%) were prescribed beta-blockers at discharge. Patients who did not receive beta-blockers had more comorbidities than those who did, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14.6% vs. 4.2%), anemia (8.0% vs. 3.7%), and cancer (7.3% vs. 2.8%), and more frequently had inferior STEMI (75.9% vs. 56.0%) and high-grade atrioventricular block (13.1% vs. 5.3%) (all p<0.01). After a mean follow-up of 49.6±24.9 months, beta-blocker treatment at discharge was independently associated with lower mortality (HR 0.