Schmidt, Megan

BACKGROUND: Power-controlled radiofrequency ablation with irrigated-tip catheters has been the norm for ventricular ablation for almost 2 decades. New catheter technology has recently integrated more accurate tissue temperature sensing enabling temperature-controlled irrigated ablation. We aimed to investigate the in vivo ablation parameters and lesion formation characteristics in ventricular myocardium using a novel temperature-controlled radiofrequency catheter. METHODS: Twenty canines were divided into 3 groups: 4 noninfarcted, acute (phase I); 8 noninfarcted, chronic (phase II); and 8 infarcted, chronic (phase III). Lesions were delivered with a temperature-controlled radiofrequency system utilizing a chemical vapor deposit diamond for efficient thermal diffusivity. In phase I, 17 ablation settings were tested (temperature set points, 50/60/70 °C; ablation duration, 15/30/60/90/120 s; and power limit, 30/50 W). Four and one of these sets of parameters were further tested in phases II and III, respectively. Lesions were assessed by ex vivo contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and gross pathology 5 weeks after ablation in phases II/III. RESULTS: Across all phases, 111 ablation lesions were delivered. Ablation with the power limit of 50 W, the temperature set point of 60 °C, and the duration of 60 s produced significantly larger and deeper lesions (mean, 569.2 mm 3 ; mean maximal depth, 9.8 mm) compared with 50 W/60 °C/30 s (mean, 340.4 mm 3 ; mean maximal depth, 8.3 mm) and 50 W/50 °C/60 s (mean, 227 mm 3 ; mean maximal depth, 6.9 mm), with P <0.05 for all pairwise comparisons. Ablation of infarcted myocardium in phase III (50 W/60 °C/30 s) resulted in smaller impedance and bipolar electrogram amplitude changes and lesion size compared with ablation in normal myocardium with the same settings. No steam pop, myocardial perforation, or char formation was observed in any of the 111 ablations across all phases. CONCLUSIONS: In vivo radiofrequency ablation in a canine model with a diamond-tip temperature-controlled catheter using a temperature set point of 60 °C and a power limit of 50 W created large lesions without steam pop risk in both normal and infarcted ventricular myocardia.

Abstract Background: Corticosteroid treatment is an effective and common therapeutic strategy for various inflammatory lung pathologies and may be an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature was to investigate the clinical outcomes associated with corticosteroid treatment of COVID-19. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus databases through March 10, 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of corticosteroid therapies for COVID-19 treatment. Outcomes of interest were mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, serious adverse events (SAEs), and superinfection. Results: A total of 7737 patients from 8 RCTs were included in the quantitative meta-analysis, of which 2795 (36.1%) patients received corticosteroids plus standard of care (SOC) while 4942 (63.9%) patients received placebo and/or SOC alone. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in patients that received corticosteroids as compared to SOC (odds ratio [OR] = 0.85 [95% CI: 0.76; 0.95], P = .003). Corticosteroid treatment reduced the odds of a need for mechanical ventilation as compared to SOC (OR = 0.76 [95% CI: 0.59; 0.97], P = .030). There was no significant difference between the corticosteroid and SOC groups with regards to SAEs and superinfections. Conclusion: Corticosteroid treatment can reduce the odds for mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 patients.

AbstractThe purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to examine clinical outcomes associated with convalescent plasma therapy in COVID‐19 patients. We performed a literature search on PubMed, medRxiv, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify studies published up to December 10th, 2020 that examined the efficacy of convalescent plasma treatment for COVID‐19. The primary endpoints were mortality, clinical improvement, and hospital length of stay. We screened 859 studies that met the search criteria, performed full‐text reviews of 56 articles, and identified 15 articles that fulfilled inclusion criteria for meta‐analysis. The odds of mortality were significantly lower in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44; 0.78], P < .001), although results from two key randomized controlled trials did not support the mortality benefit. The odds of clinical improvement were significantly higher in the convalescent plasma group compared to the control group (OR = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.54; 2.65], P < .001). There was no difference in hospital length of stay between the convalescent plasma group and the control group (MD = −0.49 days [95% CI = −3.11; 2.12], P = .713). In all, these data indicate that a mortality benefit with convalescent plasma is unclear, although there remain benefits with convalescent plasma therapy for COVID‐19.