Girardo, Marlene E

Summary: Background: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) increases cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality, but remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. Several trials support low-dose direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use in PAD treatment, although this has yet to be widely adopted in clinical practice. Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent ankle-brachial index testing (ABI) from 1996 – 2020 at Mayo Clinic. We included patients with PAD defined by abnormal ABI (<1.0 or >/=1.4). Primary outcomes evaluated were myocardial infarcts (MI), ischemic strokes (IS), critical limb ischemia (CLI)/amputation, bleeding events and all-cause mortality. DOAC and warfarin use were each compared to no anticoagulant use for the outcomes using univariate analysis and multivariate analysis. Results: 22,162 patients had abnormal ABI readings; 1,266 were on warfarin and 269 were on DOAC for any indication. Both the DOAC and warfarin groups showed significant a decrease in all-cause mortality. The DOAC group showed superior mortality outcomes with HR 0.50 [95% CI 0.40–0.63], p-value <0.001 compared to warfarin with HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.81–0.96], p-value <0.004. There appeared to be a similar trend for MI and CLI/amputation however this was not statistically significant. IS was similar with only warfarin being statistically significant. The DOAC group had improved bleeding outcomes compared to the warfarin group, HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.24–0.85), p-value 0.007. Notably, the addition of ASA for both AC groups resulted in significant HR >1. Conclusions: Our study shows that anticoagulation use, particularly DOACs, is associated with decreased all-cause mortality in patients with PAD. There appears to be a favorable trend for DOACs in MI, IS and CLI/amputation. Lastly, DOACs were found to have superior outcomes with bleeding events.

AbstractBackgroundDevelopment of brain abscess following solid organ transplantation is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a descriptive study to evaluate the etiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of brain abscess in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients at three major transplant centers in the United States.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of adults with brain abscess following SOT between January 2000 and June 2021 at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida.ResultsA total of 39 patients were diagnosed with a brain abscess following SOT. The most common pathogens were Nocardia sp. (24 cases, 61.5% [Nocardia farcinica, 37.5%]), followed by fungi (12 cases, 30.7% [Aspergillus sp., 83.3%]). The majority were kidney transplant recipients (59%). Median time to brain abscess diagnosis was 1.3 years (range, 29 days–12 years) after SOT; 10 of 12 patients (83%) with fungal brain abscess were diagnosed within 1 year after SOT. Twelve patients underwent brain biopsy for diagnosis (25% Nocardia vs. 50% fungal), eight (20.5%) underwent surgical resection of the abscess, and 31 (79.5%) received antimicrobial therapy alone. Median time to brain abscess resolution was 166 days for Nocardia and 356 days for fungal pathogens. Eleven of 39 patients (28.2%) died as a result of their brain abscess, including four of 24 patients (16%) with Nocardia and six of 10 patients (60%) with Aspergillus brain abscess. All‐cause mortality was 43.6%.ConclusionBrain abscess remains an uncommon infectious complication following SOT. Nocardia and fungi accounted for 92% of pathogens in our cohort. Fungal brain abscess portends a poor prognosis. image

Abstract Objective To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. Background Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16‐month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age‐ and sex‐matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. Results In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0–3.2]; p = 0.338). Conclusions In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.