Anantha Narayanan, Mahesh

AbstractObjectiveThe authors aimed to investigate the benefits and risks of catheter‐directed thrombolysis (CDT) in acute deep venous thrombosis (DVT).BackgroundThe role of CDT in the management of DVT is evolving. Data on CDT versus anticoagulation alone in acute DVT is sparse.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of published studies that compared CDT to anticoagulation alone in patients with acute DVT.ResultsWe included 11 studies (four randomized control trials [RCTs] and seven observational studies) with a total of 8,737 patients. During hospital stay, patients who received CDT had higher odds of major bleeding (2.5% vs. 1.6%; OR 1.46, 95% CI [1.07, 1.98], p = .02), blood transfusion (10.8% vs. 6.2%; OR 1.8, 95% CI [1.52, 2.13], p < .001), and thromboembolism (15.5% vs. 10%; OR 1.67, 95% CI [1.47, 1.91], p < .001) compared with anticoagulation alone. At 6‐month follow‐up, patients who received CDT had higher venous patency (71.1% vs. 37.7%; OR 5.49, 95% CI [2.63, 11.5], p < .001) and lower postthrombotic syndrome (PTS; 27% vs. 40.7%; OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.22, 0.86], p = .02). During a mean follow‐up duration of 30.5 ± 28 months, CDT group continued to have higher venous patency (79.6% vs. 71.8%; OR 3.79, 95% CI [1.54, 9.32], p = .004) and lower PTS (44.7% vs. 50.5%; OR 0.43, 95% CI [0.23, 0.78], p = .006), but no difference in thromboembolism.ConclusionCompared with anticoagulation alone, CDT for patients with acute DVT was associated with a higher risk of complications, but a higher rate of venous patency and lower risk of postthrombotic syndrome at 2.5 years follow‐up.

Objective Bioprosthetic valves are being used with increased frequency for valve replacement, with controversy regarding risk:benefit ratio compared with mechanical valves in younger patients. However, prior studies have been too small to provide comparative estimates of less common but serious adverse events such as infective endocarditis. We aimed to compare the incidence of infective endocarditis between bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science from inception to April 2018 for studies comparing left-sided aortic and mitral bioprosthetic to mechanical valves for randomised trials or observational studies with propensity matching. We used random-effects model for our meta-analysis. Our primary outcome of interest was the rate of infective endocarditis at follow-up. Results 13 comparison groups with 43 941 patients were included. Mean age was 59±7 years with a mean follow-up of 10.4±5.0 years. Patients with bioprosthetic valves had a higher risk of infective endocarditis compared with patients receiving mechanical valves (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.88, p<0.001) with an absolute risk reduction of 9 per 1000 (95% CI 6 to 14). Heterogeneity within the included studies was low (I2=0%). Exclusion of the study with maximum weight did not change the results of the analysis (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.17, p=0.006). A meta-regression of follow-up time on incidence of infective endocarditis was not statistically significant (p=0.788) indicating difference in follow-up times did not alter the pooled risk of infective endocarditis. Conclusions Bioprosthetic valves may be associated with a higher risk of infective endocarditis. These data should help guide the discussion when deciding between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in individual patients.

AbstractBackgroundPulseless ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) is the initial rhythm in a third of in‐hospital cardiac arrest patients. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device use remains poorly understood in this population.MethodsWe conducted an observational analysis of temporal trends in the utilization of MCS in VT/VF IHCA between January 2008 and December 2014 utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Using multivariable analysis, we assessed factors associated with MCS use and survival to discharge.ResultsAmong 151,628 hospitalizations with VT/VF IHCA, 14,981 (9.9%) received MCS. Intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) was the most commonly used MCS (9.1%). From 2008 to 2014, there was significant increase in the utilization of MCS (8.7–11%; ptrend < 0.0001). On multivariable analysis, there was 12‐fold increase and three‐fold increase in the utilization of PVAD and ECMO respectively; however, there was no significant change in the use of IABP. Over the seven‐year sample period, there was significant increase in the overall survival to hospital discharge (35.4–43.5%; ptrend < 0.0001). Survival to hospital discharge increased in both MCS and non‐MCS groups.ConclusionThere was significant increase in utilization of MCS after VT/VF IHCA during the study period. IABP was the most commonly utilized MCS. The survival to hospital discharge increased in the overall study population including both MCS and non‐MCS groups. Future studies are needed to identify patient population most likely to benefit from the use of MCS after VT/VF IHCA.