Saw, Jacqueline

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an increasingly recognized cause of acute coronary syndrome, predominantly affecting women. Psychological distress is common pre- and post-SCAD, yet sex-specific patterns remain understudied. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine sex differences in the psychological distress of patients with SCAD. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with SCAD within the past 3 years, confirmed by coronary angiography, were recruited from 6 Canadian hospitals between April 2022 and January 2025. Participants completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographics and validated measures of psychological distress: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 for generalized anxiety, Cardiac Anxiety Questionnaire for cardiac-related anxiety, and PTSD Checklist-5 for posttraumatic stress symptoms. Sex differences were analyzed using t tests for continuous variables and χ 2 tests for categorical variables. Multivariable linear regression models assessed the association between sex and psychological distress, adjusting for age, pre-SCAD mental health diagnosis, and employment status. RESULTS: Among 326 patients (92.9% women; mean age=53.3±11.1 years), women reported higher rates of preexisting mental health conditions (29.2% versus 8.7%; P =0.035). Post-SCAD women reported higher mean scores than men on the Patient-Health-Questionnaire-9, Cardiac-Anxiety-Questionnaire, and PTSD Checklist-5 (all P <0.05). Female sex was associated with greater depressive (B=2.94; P =0.010), cardiac anxiety (B=7.09; P =0.008), and posttraumatic stress symptoms (B=5.94; P =0.048) after adjustment. Clinically significant symptoms were more common in women versus men: 25.1% versus 0% (depression), 21.5% versus 4.4% (anxiety), 54.8% versus 26.1% (cardiac anxiety), and 15.5% versus 0% (posttraumatic stress). CONCLUSIONS: Both women and men experience clinically significant cardiac anxiety following SCAD, but women report a greater psychological burden, including more preexisting mental health conditions and twice the distress after SCAD. These results underscore the importance of routine psychological screening and timely intervention to support mental health and recovery outcomes, particularly among women.

Abstract Background and Aims Residual leaks are not infrequent after left atrial appendage occlusion. However, there is still uncertainty regarding their prognostic implications. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of residual leaks after left atrial appendage occlusion. Methods A literature search was conducted until 19 February 2023. Residual leaks comprised peri-device leaks (PDLs) on transoesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or computed tomography (CT), as well as left atrial appendage patency on CT. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess the clinical impact of residual leaks. Results Overall 48 eligible studies (44 non-randomized/observational and 4 randomized studies) including 61 666 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent left atrial appendage occlusion were analysed. Peri-device leak by TEE was present in 26.1% of patients. Computed tomography-based left atrial appendage patency and PDL were present in 54.9% and 57.3% of patients, respectively. Transoesophageal echocardiography-based PDL (i.e. any reported PDL regardless of its size) was significantly associated with a higher risk of thromboembolism [pooled odds ratio (pOR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.52–2.74], all-cause mortality (pOR 1.16, 95% CI: 1.08–1.24), and major bleeding (pOR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.03–1.22), compared with no reported PDL. A positive graded association between PDL size and risk of thromboembolism was noted across TEE cut-offs. For any PDL of &gt;0, &gt;1, &gt;3, and &gt;5 mm, the pORs for thromboembolism were 1.82 (95% CI: 1.35–2.47), 2.13 (95% CI: 1.04–4.35), 4.14 (95% CI: 2.07–8.27), and 4.44 (95% CI: 2.09–9.43), respectively, compared with either no PDL or PDL smaller than each cut-off. Neither left atrial appendage patency, nor PDL by CT was associated with thromboembolism (pOR 1.45 and 1.04, 95% CI: 0.84–2.50 and 0.52–2.07, respectively). Conclusions Peri-device leak detected by TEE was associated with adverse events, primarily thromboembolism. Residual leaks detected by CT were more frequent but lacked prognostic significance.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration approved left atrial appendage occlusion with the Watchman device for patients who are at increased stroke risk and are suitable for oral anticoagulation but who have an appropriate reason to seek a nondrug alternative. These broad criteria raise the question of their interpretation in clinical practice. There is a lack of studies comprehensively evaluating the indications for Watchman implantation among a large series of patients from contemporary, real-world practice in the United States. Methods: We used the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry to identify Watchman procedures performed between 2016 and 2018. We assessed procedural indications for Watchman implantation in the United States and evaluated the association between procedural indications and in-hospital adverse events. Results: A total of 38 314 procedures were included. The mean patient age was 76.1±8.1 years, and 58.9% were men. The mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 4.8±1.5, whereas the mean hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol (HAS-BLED) score was 3.0±1.1. Prior stroke or transient ischemic attack was reported in 40.2% and prior bleeding in 70.1%, with gastrointestinal bleeding being most common (41.9%). The most common site-reported procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk (64.8%) and history of major bleed (64.3%), followed by high fall risk (35.5%). Most (71.9%) had ≥2 procedural indications. Patients with high fall risk had increased risk of in-hospital adverse events (adjusted OR, 1.12; P =0.025), but no other differences were found in the risk of in-hospital adverse events by procedural indication. Conclusions: Among patients in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Registry, the most common procedural indications for Watchman implantation were increased thromboembolic risk, history of major bleed, and high fall risk. A majority of patients had multiple procedural indications. High fall risk conferred a modestly increased risk of in-hospital adverse events.