Li, Pengyang

Abstract Objectives Heart failure (HF) impacts millions of patients worldwide, yet the variability in treatment responses remains a major challenge for healthcare professionals. The current treatment strategies, largely derived from population based evidence, often fail to consider the unique characteristics of individual patients, resulting in suboptimal outcomes. This study aims to develop computational models that are patient-specific in predicting treatment outcomes, by utilizing a large Electronic Health Records (EHR) database. The goal is to improve drug response predictions by identifying specific HF patient subgroups that are likely to benefit from existing HF medications. Materials and Methods A novel, graph-based model capable of predicting treatment responses, combining Graph Neural Network and Transformer was developed. This method differs from conventional approaches by transforming a patient's EHR data into a graph structure. By defining patient subgroups based on this representation via K-Means Clustering, we were able to enhance the performance of drug response predictions. Results Leveraging EHR data from 11 627 Mayo Clinic HF patients, our model significantly outperformed traditional models in predicting drug response using NT-proBNP as a HF biomarker across five medication categories (best RMSE of 0.0043). Four distinct patient subgroups were identified with differential characteristics and outcomes, demonstrating superior predictive capabilities over existing HF subtypes (best mean RMSE of 0.0032). Discussion These results highlight the power of graph-based modeling of EHR in improving HF treatment strategies. The stratification of patients sheds light on particular patient segments that could benefit more significantly from tailored response predictions. Conclusions Longitudinal EHR data have the potential to enhance personalized prognostic predictions through the application of graph-based AI techniques.

Abstract Aims Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) is a rare complication of vaccination. In this study, we sought to provide insight into the characteristics of reported TTS induced by vaccination. Methods and results We did a systematic review, searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, Journals@Ovid, and Scopus databases up to 26 April 2023 to identify case reports or case series of vaccine-induced TTS. We then extracted and summarized the data from these reports. Eighteen reports were identified, with a total of 19 patients with TTS associated with vaccinations. Of the 19 included patients, the majority were female (n = 13, 68.4%) with a mean age of 56.6 ± 21.9 years. Seventeen patients developed TTS after coronavirus disease 2019 vaccination, 14 of whom received an mRNA vaccination. Two cases of TTS occurred after influenza vaccination. Among the 19 patients, 17 (89.5%) completed transthoracic echocardiography and 16 (84.2%) underwent angiography procedures. Seven patients (36.8%) completed cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The median time to symptom onset was 2 (inter-quartile range, 1–4) days. The most common symptoms were chest pain (68.4%), dyspnoea (57.9%), and digestive symptoms (31.6%). A total of 57.9% of patients developed nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue, myalgia, diaphoresis, and fever. Among the 16 reported cases of TTS, 15 patients (93.8%) exhibited elevated cardiac troponin levels, while among the nine reported cases, eight patients (88.9%) had elevated natriuretic peptide levels. All patients had electrocardiographic changes: ST-segment change (47.1%), T-wave inversion (58.8%), and prolonged corrected QT interval (35.3%). The most common TTS type was apical ballooning (88.2%). Treatment during hospitalization typically included beta-blockers (44.4%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (33.3%), and diuretics (22.2%). After treatment, 81.3% of patients were discharged with improved symptoms. Among this group, nine patients (56.3%) were reported to have recovered ventricular wall motion during follow-up. Two patients (12.5%) died following vaccination without resuscitation attempts. Conclusions TTS is a rare but potentially life-threatening complication of vaccination. Typical TTS symptoms such as chest pain and dyspnoea should be considered alarming symptoms, though nonspecific symptoms are common. The risks of such rare adverse events should be balanced against the risks of infection.

Background Acute pericarditis (AP) is considered a cardiovascular complication in patients with COVID‐19. We aimed to ass‐ess the incidence, associated complications, and clinical impact of AP on hospitalized patients with COVID‐19. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, International Classification of Diseases, Tenthth Revision, Clinical Modification ( ICD‐10 ) codes were used to identify patients with COVID‐19 with or without AP in the National Inpatient Sample 2020 database. We compared outcomes between AP and non‐AP groups before and after propensity‐score matching for patient and hospital demographics and relevant comorbidities. A total of 211 619 patients with a primary diagnosis of COVID‐19 were identified, including 983 (0.46%) patients who had a secondary diagnosis of AP. Before matching, patients with COVID‐19 with AP were younger (59.93±19.24 years old versus 64.29±16.82 years old) and more likely to have anemia (40.5% versus 19.9%), cancer (6.7% versus 3.6%), and chronic kidney disease (29.3% versus 19.6%) (all P <0.05). After matching, patients with COVID‐19 with AP (n=980), when compared with the matched non‐AP group (n=2936), had higher rates of mortality (21.3% versus 11.1%, P <0.001), cardiac arrest (5.0% versus 2.6%, P <0.001), cardiogenic shock (4.2% versus 0.5%, P <0.001), ventricular arrhythmia (4.7% versus 1.9%, P <0.001), acute kidney injury (38.3% versus 28.9%, P <0.001), acute congestive heart failure (14.3% versus 4.8%, P <0.001), and longer length of stay (7.00±10.00 days versus 5.00±7.00 days, P <0.001) and higher total charges ($75066.5±$130831.3 versus $44824.0±$63660.5, P <0.001). Conclusions In hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, AP is a rare but severe in‐hospital complication and is associated with worse in‐hospital outcomes.

AbstractIntroductionLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBP) is a novel conduction system pacing method to achieve effective physiological pacing and an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We conduted this meta‐analysis and systemic review to review current data comparing BVP and LBBP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT.MethodsWe searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of the database to November 2022. All studies that compared LBBP with BVP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT were included. Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with the Mantel–Haenszel method and mean difference (MD) with inverse variance using random effect models. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index, with I2 > 50% indicating significant heterogeneity.ResultsTen studies (9 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial; 616 patients; 15 centers) published between 2020 and 2022 were included. We observed a shorter fluoroscopy time (MD: 9.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.49–14.87, I2 = 95%, p < .01, minutes) as well as a shorter procedural time (MD 33.68, 95% CI: 17.80–49.55, I2 = 73%, p < .01, minutes) during the implantation of LBBP CRT compared to conventional BVP CRT. LBBP was shown to have a greater reduction in QRS duration (MD 25.13, 95% CI: 20.06–30.20, I2 = 51%, p < .01, milliseconds), a greater left ventricular ejection fraction improvement (MD: 5.80, 95% CI: 4.81–6.78, I2 = 0%, p < .01, percentage), and a greater left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter reduction (MD: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.12–4.10, I2 = 18%, p = .04, millimeter). There was a greater improvement in New York Heart Association function class with LBBP (MD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.05–0.68, I2 = 61%, p = .02). LBBP was also associated with a lower risk of a composite of heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and all‐cause mortality (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25–0.90, I2 = 0%, p = .02) driven by reduced HFH (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19–0.82, I2 = 0%, p = .01). However, all‐cause mortality rates were low in both groups (1.52% vs. 1.13%) and similar (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.21–4.68, I2 = 0%, p = .87).ConclusionThis meta‐analysis of primarily nonrandomized studies suggests that LBBP is associated with a greater improvement in left ventricular systolic function and a lower rate of HFH compared to BVP. There was uniformity of these findings in all of the included studies. However, it would be premature to conclude based solely on the current meta‐analysis alone, given the limitations stated. Dedicated, well‐designed, randomized controlled trials and observational studies are needed to elucidate better the comparative long‐term efficacy and safety of LBBP CRT versus BIV CRT.

Background: Left bundle area branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel conduction system pacing method to achieve effective physiological pacing and an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Objective: To review current data comparing BVP and LBBP in patients with HFrEF and indication CRT. Methods: We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of the database to November 2022. All studies that compared LBBP with BVP in patients with HFrEF and indications of CRT were included. Two reviewers performed the study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated risk ratios with the Mantel-Haenszel method and mean difference with inverse variance using random effect models. We assessed heterogeneity using the I 2 index, with I 2 > 50% indicating significant heterogeneity. Results: Ten studies (9 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial; 616 patients; 15 centers) published between 2020 and 2022 were included. We observed a shorter fluoroscopy time [mean difference (MD) 9.68, 95% CI 4.49-14.87, I 2 =95%, P<0.01, minutes] as well as a shorter procedure time (MD 33.68, 95% CI 17.80-49.55, I 2 =73%, P<0.01, minutes) during implantation of LBBP CRT compared to conventional BVP CRT. LBBP was shown to have a greater reduction in QRSd (MD 25.13, 95%CI 20.06-30.20, I 2 = 51%, P<0.01, milliseconds) a greater left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement (MD 5.80, 95% CI 4.81-6.78, I 2 =0%, P<0.01, percentage) and a greater ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) reduction (MD 2.11, 95% CI 0.12-4.10, I 2 =18%, P=0.04, millimeter). There was a greater improvement in New York Heart Association function (NYHA) class with LBBP (MD 0.37, 95% CI 0.05-0.68, I 2 =61%, P=0.02).LBBP was also associated with a lower risk of a composite of heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality [Risk ratio (RR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.90, I 2 =0%, p=0.02] driven by reduced heart failure hospitalizations (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.82, I 2 =0%, p=0.01). However, all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (1.52% vs. 1.13%) and similar (RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.21-4.68, I 2 =0%, p=0.87). Conclusion: Compared to BVP, LBBP is associated with, a greater improvement in LV systolic function, and a lower rate of heart failure-related hospitalization. Dedicated randomized controlled trials and larger patient populations are needed to further elucidate the long-term safety and efficacy of LBBP CRT.