Mohamed, Mohamed Salah

Introduction: Data on use of ICE guidance in TEER procedure is limited to case reports and small case series. Our study aims to assess the feasibility, safety, utilization patterns and clinical outcomes of mitral TEER procedure with ICE guidance using a nationally representative real-world cohort of patients.Hypothesis: There is no difference between ICE-guided TEER and TEE-guided TEER in the clinical outcomes and complications. Methods: This study used the National Inpatient Sample database from quarter 4 of 2015 to 2020. We used a propensity-matched analysis and adjusted odds ratios for in-hospital outcomes/complications. A P value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 38,770 weighted cases of mitral TEER were identified. Of the included patients 665 patients underwent ICE-guided TEER while 38,105 had TEE-guided TEER. There were no differences in the in-hospital mortality between both groups (2.5% vs. 3.0%, p=0.58). Adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.83, 95%CI [0.42-1.64]) were not significantly different. There were no differences in periprocedural complications including cardiac (aOR 0.85, 95%CI [0.54-1.35]), bleeding (aOR 1.45, 95%CI [0.93-2.33]), respiratory (aOR 0.88, 95%CI [0.61-1.25]), and renal (aOR 0.89, 95%CI [0.66-1.20]) complications between patients undergoing ICE-guided versus TEE-guided TEER. There was no difference in GI complications between both groups (aOR 1.11, 95%CI [0.46-2.70]). The adjusted length of stay was less among ICE-guided TEER (median: 1 vs. 2, p<0.01) with no differences in costs of hospitalization ($137,312 vs. $153,773, p=0.06), Conclusions: In conclusion, ICE-guided mitral TEER is safe when compared with TEE guided TEER with no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, cardiac, bleeding, respiratory, and renal complications. The length of stay in ICE group is shorter as compared with the TEE group.

Introduction: Data on clinical outcomes of percutaneous closure of iatrogenic atrial septal defect (PC-ASD) in patients undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) or mitral valve replacement (TMVR) remains limited. We used a real-world USA database to evaluate the differences in the in-hospital outcomes between both groups. Hypothesis: Is there a clinical significance for PC-ASD in patients undergoing TEER or TMVR? Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample (2015-2020) by utilizing ICD-10 codes to identify all patients who underwent TEER or TMVR with or without PC-ASD. Multivariate logistic regression was used for adjusted outcomes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]). Results: A total of 44,065 eligible weighted hospitalizations were included: 39,625 (89.9%) of the patients underwent TEER and 4,440 (10.1%) underwent TMVR. Rates of PC-ASD were higher in TMVR group compared to TEER group (10.7% vs. 2.0%, p<0.01). In patients who underwent TEER without PC-ASD, PC-ASD was more associated with acute heart failure (AHF) (aOR 1.42 [1.19-1.68], p<0.01) and longer hospitalizations (aOR 1.64 [1.41-1.89], p<0.01), without significant difference in inpatient mortality (aOR 0.97 [0.61-1.54], p<0.01), cardiogenic shock (aOR 1.13 [0.85-1.51], p=0.21), need for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (aOR 0.98 [0.61-1.54], p=0.18), and stroke. Compared to patients who underwent TMVR without PC-ASD, PC-ASD was associated with higher inpatient morality (aOR 1.65 [1.13-2.4], p<0.01), need for MCS (aOR 1.91 [1.33-2.73], p<0.01) without significant difference in AHF (aOR 1.19 [0.94-1.51], p=0.18] and cardiogenic shock (aOR 0.83 [0.56-1.22], p=0.43). Remarkably, PC-ASD was less associated with stroke (aOR 0.27 [0.10-0.72], p<0.01). Conclusions: Rates of PC-ASD after TEER were lower than after TMVR and were associated with worse in-hospital mortality and need for MCS in TMVR but not in TEER. Also, PC-ASD was less associated with stroke after TMVR.

Introduction: Data on clinical outcomes of early transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (<48 hours) compared to late (≥48 hours) TAVR in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure (AHF) and aortic stenosis (AS) remains limited. We aim to evaluate the differences between early vs. late TAVR regarding major clinical outcomes using a real-world US database. Hypothesis: There is no differences in the clinical outcomes based on the timing of TAVR procedural intervention in patients with acute heart failure. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample database by utilizing ICD-10 codes to identify all hospitalizations with a diagnosis of AHF and TAVR (2015-2020). The associations between the time of TAVR and outcomes were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matched (PSM) analysis was utilized to determine the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of major clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 25,285 weighted hospitalizations of AHF were identified, of which 6,855 patients (27.1%) underwent early TAVR and 18,430 (72.9%) had late TAVR. Compared with early TAVR, Late TAVR was associated with less need for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (aOR 0.97 [0.96-0.98], p<0.01) and acute hypoxic respiratory failure (aOR 0.99 [0.98-0.99], p<0.01), but higher odds of developing septic shock (aOR 2.06 [1.52-2.80], p <0.01). However, there was no significant difference between both procedures regarding in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.01 [1.00-1.02], p=0.14), cardiac arrest (aOR 0.99 [0.98-1.00], p=0.21), and stroke (aOR 1.01 [1.00-1.02], p=0.18). Conclusions: Most patients with AHF and AS undergo TAVR after 48 hours of their presentation. After PSM, there was no difference in inpatient mortality, cardiac arrest, and stroke between both procedures. Late TAVR was associated with lower odds for MCS and acute hypoxic respiratory failure. The optimal timing of TAVR in patients with AHF and AS needs further study.

Introduction: Patients with acute heart failure (AHF) exacerbation are susceptible to complications in the setting of COVID-19 infection. Data regarding the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in patients admitted with AHF is limited. Methods: We used the national inpatient sample database by utilizing ICD-10 codes to identify all hospitalizations with a diagnosis of AHF in 2020. We classified the sample into AHF with COVID-19 infection versus those without COVID-19. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, need for pressors, mechanical cardiac support, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest. Also, we evaluated for acute pulmonary embolism (PE), bacterial pneumonia, need for a ventilator, and acute kidney injury (AKI). Results: We identified a total of 694,920 of AHF hospitalizations, 660,463 (95.04%) patients without COVID-19 and 34,457 (4.96%) with COVID-19 infection. For baseline comorbidities, diabetes mellitus, chronic heart failure, ESRD, and coagulopathy were significantly higher among AHF patients with COVID-19 ( P < .01). While CAD, prior MI, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and peripheral vascular disease were higher among those without COVID-19. After adjustment for baseline comorbidities, in-hospital mortality (aOR 5.08 [4.81 to 5.36]), septic shock (aOR 2.54 [2.40 to 2.70]), PE (aOR 1.75 [1.57 to 1.94]), and AKI (aOR 1.33 [1.30 to 1.37]) were significantly higher among AHF with COVID-19 patients. The mean length of stay (5 vs 7 days, P < .01) and costs of hospitalization ($42,143 vs $60,251, P < .01) were higher among AHF patients with COVID-19 infection. Conclusion: COVID-19 infection in patients with AHF is associated with significantly higher in-hospital mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, septic shock, and AKI along with higher resource utilization. Predictors for mortality in AHF patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 infection, patients with end-stage heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Studies on the impact of vaccination against COVID-19 in AHF patients are needed