Gunda, Sampath

AbstractIntroductionThromboembolic events after catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) can result in significant morbidity. Thromboembolic prophylaxis after catheter ablation can be achieved by the use of antiplatelet agents, vitamin K antagonists, or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). The relative safety and efficacy of these modes of prophylaxis are uncertain. We sought to compare the outcomes of patients who received warfarin or DOACs for thromboembolic prophylaxis after catheter ablation of VT.Methods and ResultsAnticoagulation with DOACS was started after left ventricular VT ablation in a series of 42 consecutive patients with structural heart disease (67 ± 11 years, 3 women, ejection fraction 32 ± 14%). Duration of hospital stay, bleeding episodes, and thromboembolic events were compared to a historic consecutive group of patients (n = 38, 65 ± 13 years, 14 women, ejection fraction 36 ± 13%) in whom anticoagulation with a formerly described protocol of heparin and vitamin K antagonist was used after VT ablation procedures. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the group where DOACs were used as compared to vitamin K antagonists (3.3 ± 1.8 vs. 5.0 ± 2.5 days postablation; p = 0.001) without an increase of bleeding or thromboembolic events.ConclusionAnticoagulation with DOACs is safe and shortens hospital stay in patients with structural heart disease undergoing left ventricular VT ablation procedures.

Objective: The Lung Injury Prediction Score identifies patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome in the emergency department, but it has not been validated in non-emergency department hospitalized patients. We aimed to evaluate whether Lung Injury Prediction Score identifies non-emergency department hospitalized patients at risk of developing acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of critical care contact. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Five academic medical centers. Patients: Nine hundred consecutive patients (≥ 18 yr old) with at least one acute respiratory distress syndrome risk factor at the time of critical care contact. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Lung Injury Prediction Score was calculated using the worst values within the 12 hours before initial critical care contact. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of initial contact were excluded. Acute respiratory distress syndrome developed in 124 patients (13.7%) a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 2–3) after critical care contact. Hospital mortality was 22% and was significantly higher in acute respiratory distress syndrome than non-acute respiratory distress syndrome patients (48% vs 18%; p < 0.001). Increasing Lung Injury Prediction Score was significantly associated with development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21–1.42) and the composite outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome or death (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18–1.34). A Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 was associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.26–7.72), composite outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome or death (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.68–3.49), and acute respiratory distress syndrome after accounting for the competing risk of death (hazard ratio, 3.71; 95% CI, 2.05–6.72). For acute respiratory distress syndrome development, the Lung Injury Prediction Score has an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.70 and a Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 has 90% sensitivity (misses only 10% of acute respiratory distress syndrome cases), 31% specificity, 17% positive predictive value, and 95% negative predictive value. Conclusions: In a cohort of non-emergency department hospitalized patients, the Lung Injury Prediction Score and Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 can identify patients at increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome and/or death at the time of critical care contact but it does not perform as well as in the original emergency department cohort.