Al‐Saffar, Farah

Objectives: Clinicians need to identify which patients presenting with S. aureus bacteremia (SAB) have underlying cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection and therefore need device extraction. The goal of this study was to identify clinical predictors of CIED infection in patients presenting with SAB. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all cases of SAB in CIED recipients at Mayo Clinic from Jan 2001 to Dec 2011. CIED infection was defined using clinical, microbiologic and echocardiographic criteria. Patients who presented with clinical signs of CIED pocket infection were excluded. A multivariable model was developed to identify independent predictors of CIED infection. Model discrimination was summarized using the area under a receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). Results: Among the 131 patients with SAB and CIED, 45 (34%) had underlying CIED infection. Permanent pacemaker (PPM) devices (OR 3.90, 95% CI 1.65-9.23, p=0.002), >1 device-related procedure (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.23-8.86, p=0.018), and duration of SAB ≥4 days (OR 5.54, 95% CI 3.32-13.23, p <0.001) were independently associated with an increased risk of CIED infection. The AUC for this multivariable model was 0.79 indicating good discriminatory capacity to separate SAB patients with and without CIED infection. Various combinations of these three features and the corresponding predicted probabilities of CIED infection are summarized in Table. Conclusions: An individual patient’s risk of underlying CIED infection can be calculated based on the type of device, number of device-related procedures, and duration of SAB. Patients without any of these high-risk features have very low risk of underlying CIED infection and may be monitored closely without immediate device extraction.

AbstractBackgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Our primary aim was to evaluate patient‐centered outcomes and surrogate outcomes following catheter ablation (CA) of AF among patients with HFrEF compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy (atrioventricular node ablation and cardiac resynchronization therapy).MethodsA systematic literature review was performed limiting our searches to randomized control trials reporting outcomes of CA compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy were included. Patient‐centered outcomes were relative reduction in all‐cause mortality, heart failure readmissions, and recurrence of AF. Surrogate outcomes of interest were change in ejection fraction, change in peak oxygen consumption, reduction in brain natriuretic peptide levels, change in 6‐minute walk distance, and change in Minnesota living with heart failure score.ResultsSeven randomized control trials (Patient n = 721) met our inclusion criteria. All trials used radiofrequency energy for CA of AF. CA for AF was associated with significantly lower all‐cause mortality (Risk ratio [RR] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.35‐0.76, P = 0.001, I2 = 0%), lower rate of heart failure readmission (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.46‐0.74, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%) and lower rate of AF recurrence (RR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.22‐0.50, P < 0.001, I2 = 68%) as compared to standard medical therapy. Surrogate outcomes showed a similar benefit favoring CA.Conclusion and RelevanceCatheter ablation for AF in HFrEF is associated with improvement in patient‐centered outcomes and surrogate outcomes when compared to standard medical therapy with or without device therapy.

Millions of patients in the United States use anticoagulation for a variety of indications, such as the prevention of stroke in those with atrial fibrillation (AF) and the treatment and prevention of venous thrombosis. For over six decades warfarin was the only available oral anticoagulant, but now several DOACs are available and their use has become more prevalent in recent years. In spite of this increased use, many physicians remain reluctant to prescribe DOACs due to concerns about bleeding and reversibility.

AbstractBackgroundTransthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and computerized axial tomography (CT) are complementary imaging techniques. It is possible that a combination of the two may offer a better way of identifying pulmonary hypertension (PH) than either one alone.ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of TTE combined with chest CT in pulmonary hypertension.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of consecutive patients who had undergone TTE, CT and right heart catheterization (RHC) between 7/1/2008 and 6/30/2012. PH was defined as systolic pulmonary artery pressure >40 mm Hg or tricuspid regurgitant (TR) jet velocity >2.8m/s on TTE, ratio of diameter of pulmonary artery to ascending aorta (rPA) >1 or diameter of PA (dPA) >30 mm on CT, and mean PAP (mPAP) >25 mm Hg on RHC.ResultsThere was a total of 87 patients. The mean ± SD age was 54.3 ± 15.9 years and 69 (79%) were female. The prevalence of PH was 75%. The mean ± SD mPAP was 35.8 ± 14.2 mm Hg. The majority of the patients belonged to World Health Organization group I PH. Fifty per cent of the CT scans were done with intravenous contrast dye. The combination of TR jet velocity and rPA provided the best combination of sensitivity (98%) and specificity (70%) with an ROC area under the curve of 0.84.ConclusionThe combination of TTE and chest CT is better than either imaging technique alone in identifying patients with PH in a heterogeneous population and may exclude PH

Background— Prompt recognition of underlying cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection in patients presenting with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB) is critical for optimal management of these cases. The goal of this study was to identify clinical predictors of CIED infection in patients presenting with SAB and no signs of pocket infection. Methods and Results— All cases of SAB in CIED recipients at Mayo Clinic from 2001 to 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. We identified 131 patients with CIED who presented with SAB and had no clinical signs of device pocket infection. Forty-five (34%) of these patients had underlying CIED infection based on clinical or echocardiographic criteria. The presence of a permanent pacemaker rather than an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (odds ratio, 3.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.65–9.23; P =0.002), >1 device-related procedure (odds ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.23–8.86; P =0.018), and duration of SAB ≥4 days (odds ratio, 5.54; 95% confidence interval, 3.32–13.23; P <0.001) were independently associated with an increased risk of CIED infection in a multivariable model. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the multivariable model was 0.79, indicating a good discriminatory capacity to distinguish SAB patients with and without CIED infection. Conclusions— Among patients presenting with SAB and no signs of pocket infection, the risk of underlying CIED infection can be calculated based on the type of device, number of device-related procedures, and duration of SAB. We propose that patients without any of these high-risk features have a low risk of underlying CIED infection and may be monitored closely without immediate device extraction. Prospective studies are needed to validate this risk prediction model.