Fratti, Juan Del Cid

Background: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a prevalent condition affecting one in four patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) has proven benefits in PAD. We are conducting a trial testing the utility of IPC in the ESRD population by assessing the improvement in quality of life (QOL), functional limitation and walking performance from PAD-related symptoms. We aim to present our pilot results. Methods: Prospective single cohort study undergoing recruitment of outpatients at the hemodialysis (HD) unit of John H. Stroger Hospital. The calculated sample size is 78. PAD is confirmed by ankle-brachial index (ABI) and demographics obtained from interview and chart review. At baseline and post intervention, a Six-minute Walk Test (6MWT), Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ) and Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) are administered. The IPC device (Bio Arterial Plus) is used for intervention during HD. We present continuous variables as median (IQR) and categorical variables as percentage. Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed for comparison of results. Results: So far, 9 patients have completed intervention for the pilot study, 44% are men, the majority hispanic (66%), with age 48 (41-63) years. At baseline 66% of ABI were abnormal, all due to non-compressible PAD 1.46 (1.20-1.62). All patients have HTN, 44% diabetes, 33% hyperlipidemia and 33% heart failure. The median time of intervention is 70 (60-83) days. There was a significant difference in QOL measured by the WIQ (Fig.1), PAQ physical limitation (p=0.011), and PAQ social limitation (p=0.018). Although there was a trend towards benefit, no statistical difference was found on rest of objective and subjective measured parameters (p>0.05) Conclusions: Preliminary, IPC shows to improve many subsets of QOL in patients with ESRD and PAD. Given the small sample, improvement of walking distance remains elusive but with trends towards benefit.

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) adversely affect the outcomes in the patients of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, however there are limited data exploring such an association in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Hypothesis: AF is associated with worse outcomes in HFpEF. Methods: We included all the patients with the primary diagnosis of HFpEF from the national inpatient sample (NIS) database (2012-2014) using ICD-9 codes. Exposure of interest was AF. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), syncope, cardiogenic shock, embolic stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), acute kidney injury (AKI), passive hepatic congestion, ventricular fibrillation (V fib) and flutter, ventricular assist device (VAD), AICD, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), intra-aortic balloon placement (IABP) placement and heart transplantation. Hospitalization cost was also studied. Results: Our study cohorts included 26,51,970 patients of HFpEF with AF and 37,44,101 patients of HFpEF without AF. AF cohort had more numbers of older patients and less female representation. In-hospital mortality was more in AF cohort. Similarly, the odds of SCA, cardiogenic shock, embolic stroke, passive hepatic congestion, Vfib and flutter, AICD and CRT placement were higher in AF cohort. The odds of syncope, AMI and AKI were lower in AF cohort as compared to non-AF cohort. While the odds of heart transplantation and VAD and IABP use remained comparable between the study cohorts, AF cohort incurred greater of cost of hospitalization. Conclusion: AF in HFpEF patients is associated with increased in-hospital mortality and cardiogenic shock and should be aggressively treated for improved outcomes.