Aboeata, Ahmed

Background: Outcomes of device-detected AF remain unclear in individuals without a prior history of AF. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate outcomes in individuals with no prior history of AF who experienced device-detected AF. Outcomes assessed were clinical AF, thromboembolism and all-cause mortality. A fixed-effects model was used to calculate RRs with 95% CI. Results: Compared to individuals who did not experience device-detected AF, those who did had increased risks of clinical AF (RR 3.33, 95% CI [1.99–5.57]; p<0.0001) and thromboembolic events (RR 2.21; 95% CI [1.72–2.85]; p<0.0001). The risk of all-cause mortality was similar between both groups (RR 1.19; 95% CI [0.95–1.49]; p=0.13). Subgroup analysis revealed an increased risk of thromboembolic events among device-detected AF ≥24 hours (RR 12.34; 95% CI [2.70–56.36]). Conclusion: While there is an increased risk of clinical AF and thromboembolism in individuals with device-detected AF, mortality was insignificant.

Introduction and importance: Chest pain is one of the most prevalent complaints amongst individuals presenting in healthcare settings, encompassing a broad spectrum of etiologies. Work-up for chest pain often focuses on excluding life-threatening conditions before the consideration of atypical causes. Case presentation: A 47-year-old male with a past medical history of tobacco use and depression presented with persistent left-sided chest pain. Vitals on arrival were notable for mild hypertension. Two consecutive high-sensitivity troponins were unremarkable. The electrocardiogram showed sinus rhythm with no ischemic changes. Due to the atypical presentation of chest pain, the patient’s home medications were reviewed, and his bupropion was discontinued due to concern for medication-induced chest pain. The patient was discharged and presented 2 days for follow-up endorsing complete resolution of his chest pain. Clinical discussion: Prior investigations have shown bupropion to be associated with chest pain, with resolution noted after discontinuation. The etiology of chest pain is likely sympathomimetic, as bupropion has been shown to exhibit positive inotropic effects on myocardial tissue, propagated by catecholamine release. Conclusion: Patients taking bupropion may present with atypical chest pain. Medication discontinuation may be beneficial in alleviating symptoms.

Introduction and importance: Chest pain is a frequent reason patients seek medical attention. The broad spectrum of potential etiologies makes determining the underlying cause of chest pain complex. Among cardiovascular etiologies, aortitis is a rare but life-threatening possibility that should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Case presentation: A 53-year-old female with a history of smoking presented with progressively worsening chest and epigastric pain over several weeks. She had seen multiple physicians previously for the same symptoms with unremarkable work-ups. Physical examination was notable for severe tenderness upon palpation of her lower abdomen. The electrocardiogram and troponins were unremarkable. Computed tomography of the abdomen revealed aneurysmal dilatation of the abdominal aorta, soft tissue thickening, and surrounding inflammatory stranding, consistent with aortitis. Infectious and autoimmune work-ups were unremarkable. Intravenous steroids were initiated, and her symptoms improved significantly. Her aortitis was attributed to inflammation secondary to chronic smoking. Clinical discussion: Aortitis is a rare condition with varied clinical presentations. Etiologies of aortitis include infection and non-infectious inflammation. Diagnosis of aortitis requires a thorough clinical assessment and prompt imaging of the aorta, with computed tomography being the preferred imaging modality. Conclusion: Evaluation for cardiovascular chest pain must extend beyond an electrocardiogram and troponin level. Imaging should be considered in patients with atypical symptoms. Aortitis is a rare but important diagnosis requiring immediate treatment.

Background: Transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation (TPVI) is an effective non-surgical treatment method for patients with right ventricle outflow tract dysfunction. The Medtronic Melody and the Edwards Sapien are the two valves approved for use in TPVI. Since TPVI patients are typically younger, even a modest annual incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) is significant. Several previous studies have shown a growing risk of IE after TPVI. There is uncertainty regarding the overall incidence of IE and differences in the risk of IE between the valves. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases from inception to 1 January 2023 using the search terms ‘pulmonary valve implantation’, ‘TPVI’, or ‘PPVI’. The primary outcome was the pooled incidence of IE following TPVI in Melody and Sapien valves and the difference in incidence between Sapien and Melody valves. Fixed effect and random effect models were used depending on the valve. Meta-regression with random effects was conducted to test the difference in the incidence of IE between the two valves. Results: A total of 22 studies (including 10 Melody valve studies, 8 Sapien valve studies, and 4 studies that included both valves (572 patients that used the Sapien valve and 1395 patients that used the Melody valve)) were used for the final analysis. Zero IE incidence following TPVI was reported by eight studies (66.7%) that utilized Sapien valves compared to two studies (14.3%) that utilized Melody valves. The pooled incidence of IE following TPVI with Sapien valves was 2.1% (95% CI: 0.9% to 5.13%) compared to 8.5% (95% CI: 4.8% to 15.2%) following TPVI with Melody valves. Results of meta-regression indicated that the Sapien valve had a 79.6% (95% CI: 24.2% to 94.4%, p = 0.019; R2 = 34.4) lower risk of IE incidence compared to the Melody valve. Conclusions: The risk of IE following TPVI differs significantly. A prudent valve choice in favor of Sapien valves to lower the risk of post-TPVI endocarditis may be beneficial.

Introduction: Valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) and redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo-SMVR) are two treatment strategies for patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve dysfunction. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for studies comparing outcomes of ViV-TMVR versus redo-SMVR in degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves. We used a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Outcomes included in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 2-year mortality, stroke, bleeding and vascular complications, acute kidney injury (AKI), arrhythmias, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: Six observational studies with a total of 1,339 subjects were included. Median follow-up was 2 years. Compared to redo-SMVR, ViV-TMVR was associated with significantly lower in-hospital (RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.25-0.70; p=0.001) and 30-day mortality (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.24-0.98; p=0.04) but similar 1-year (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.64-1.47; p=0.89) and 2-year mortality (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.71-1.81; p=0.59). Stroke, bleeding, AKI, and arrhythmias were less frequent and hospital LOS was shorter with ViV-TMVR, however vascular complications were similar between both strategies. Conclusion: In patients with degenerated bioprosthetic mitral valves, ViV-TMVR is associated with better outcomes compared to redo-SMVR including lower in-hospital and 30-day mortality, lower complication rates, and shorter hospital LOS. Given these findings and the ongoing advances in transcatheter therapeutics, ViV-TMVR may be preferred over redo-SMVR, particularly in individuals at intermediate-to-high surgical risk.