Arora, Shilpkumar

Abstract Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is relatively less frequent in younger patients (age<50). Recently, studies have suggested that early restoration of sinus rhythm may lead to improved outcomes compared with rate control. Methods: We included all hospitalized patients between 18 and 50 years with a diagnosis of AF from the Nationwide Readmission Database 2016-2017 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Demographic and comorbidity data were collected and analyzed. Outcomes assessed included one-year AF readmission rates, all-cause readmission, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for all demographic and comorbidity variables.Results: Overall, 52,598 patients (medium age 44, interquartile range 38-48, female 25.7%) were included in the study, including 2,146 (4.0%) who underwent catheter ablation for AF. Patients who underwent catheter ablation had a significantly lower rate of readmission for AF or any cause at one year (adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of 0.52 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.63] and HR of 0.81 [95% CI: 0.72 - 0.89], respectively). There was no difference in 1-year readmission for stroke or all-cause mortality between the two groups. Subgroup analyses showed a consistent reduction in the risk of AF readmission among major demographic and comorbidity subgroups.Conclusion: Catheter ablation in young patients with AF was associated with a reduction in 1-year AF related and all-cause readmissions. These data merit further prospective investigation for validation.

The impact of coronavirus disease, 2019 (COVID-19), has been profound. Though COVID-19 primarily affects the respiratory system, it has also been associated with a wide range of cardiovascular (CV) manifestations portending extremely poor prognosis. The principal hypothesis for CV involvement is through direct myocardial infection and systemic inflammation. We conducted a systematic review of the current literature to provide a foundation for understanding the CV manifestations and outcomes of COVID-19. PubMed and EMBASE databases were electronically searched from the inception of the databases through 27 April 2020. A second literature review was conducted to include major trials and guidelines that were published after the initial search but before submission. The inclusion criteria for studies to be eligible were case reports, case series, and observation studies reporting CV outcomes among patients with COVID-19 infection. This review of the current COVID-19 disease and CV outcomes literature revealed a myriad of CV manifestations with potential avenues for treatment and prevention. Future studies are required to understand on a more mechanistic level the effect of COVID-19 on the myocardium and thus provide avenues to improve mortality and morbidity.

Abstract Aims The aim of this study is to evaluate the contemporary use of a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) in acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS). Methods and results A retrospective cohort of AMI-CS admissions using the National Inpatient Sample (2000–2014) was identified. Admissions with concomitant cardiac surgery or non-AMI aetiology for cardiogenic shock were excluded. The outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and temporal trends in cohorts with and without PAC use. In the non-PAC cohort, the use and outcomes of right heart catheterization was evaluated. Multivariable regression and propensity matching was used to adjust for confounding. During 2000–2014, 364 001 admissions with AMI-CS were included. PAC was used in 8.1% with a 75% decrease during over the study period (13.9% to 5.4%). Greater proportion of admissions to urban teaching hospitals received PACs (9.5%) compared with urban non-teaching (7.1%) and rural hospitals (5.4%); P &lt; 0.001. Younger age, male sex, white race, higher comorbidity, noncardiac organ failure, use of mechanical circulatory support, and noncardiac support were independent predictors of PAC use. The PAC cohort had higher in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.07 [95% confidence interval 1.04–1.10]), longer length of stay (10.9 ± 10.9 vs. 8.2 ± 9.3 days), higher hospitalization costs ($128 247 ± 138 181 vs. $96 509 ± 116 060), and lesser discharges to home (36.3% vs. 46.4%) (all P &lt; 0.001). In 6200 propensity-matched pairs, in-hospital mortality was comparable between the two cohorts (odds ratio 1.01 [95% confidence interval 0.94–1.08]). Right heart catheterization was used in 12.5% of non-PAC admissions and was a marker of greater severity but did not indicate worse outcomes. Conclusions In AMI-CS, there was a 75% decrease in PAC use between 2000 and 2014. Admissions receiving a PAC were a higher risk cohort with worse clinical outcomes.