Villablanca, Pedro

Objective This manuscript aims to explore the impact of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status on in-hospital complication rates after left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). Methods The US National Inpatient Sample was used to identify hospitalisations for LAAC between 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2018. These patients were stratified by race/ethnicity and quartiles of median neighbourhood income. The primary outcome was the occurrence of in-hospital major adverse events, defined as a composite of postprocedural bleeding, cardiac and vascular complications, acute kidney injury and ischaemic stroke. Results Of 6478 unweighted hospitalisations for LAAC, 58% were male and patients of black, Hispanic and ‘other’ race/ethnicity each comprised approximately 5% of the cohort. Adjusted by the older Americans population, the estimated number of LAAC procedures was 69.2/100 000 for white individuals, as compared with 29.5/100 000 for blacks, 47.2/100 000 for Hispanics and 40.7/100 000 for individuals of ‘other’ race/ethnicity. Black patients were ~5 years younger but had a higher comorbidity burden. The primary outcome occurred in 5% of patients and differed significantly between racial/ethnic groups (p<0.001) but not across neighbourhood income quartiles (p=0.88). After multilevel modelling, the overall rate of in-hospital major adverse events was higher in black patients as compared with whites (OR: 1.60, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.10, p<0.001); however, the incidence of acute kidney injury was higher in Hispanics (OR: 2.19, 95% CI 1.52 to 3.17, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in adjusted overall in-hospital complication rates between income quartiles. Conclusion In this study assessing racial/ethnic disparities in patients undergoing LAAC, minorities are under-represented, specifically patients of black race/ethnicity. Compared with whites, black patients had higher comorbidity burden and higher rates of in-hospital complications. Lower socioeconomic status was not associated with complication rates.

Background Bivalirudin may be an effective alternative anticoagulant to heparin for use in percutaneous peripheral interventions. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing percutaneous peripheral intervention. Methods For this meta-analysis and systematic review, we conducted a search in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane for all the clinical studies in which bivalirudin was compared to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant in percutaneous peripheral interventions. Outcomes studied included all-cause mortality, all-bleeding, major and minor bleeding, and access site complications. Results Eleven studies were included in the analysis, totaling 20,137 patients. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.87), all-bleeding (risk ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.50–0.78), major bleeding (risk ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.96), minor bleeding (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.47–0.92), and access site complications (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.84). There was no significant difference in peri-procedural need for blood transfusions (risk ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.57–1.08), myocardial infarction (risk ratio 0.87, 95% CI 0.59–1.28), stroke (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–1.01), intracranial bleeding (risk ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.29–2.02), or amputations (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.53–1.05). Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that bivalirudin use for percutaneous peripheral interventions is associated with lower all-cause mortality, bleeding, and access site complications as compared to heparin. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm the current results.

Background Studies have shown that chronic total occlusion ( CTO ) in a noninfarct‐related artery in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction is linked to increased mortality. It remains unclear whether staged revascularization of a noninfarct‐related artery CTO in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction translates to improved outcomes. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare outcomes between patients presenting with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with concurrent CTO who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention of noninfarct‐related artery CTO versus those who did not. Method and Results We conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events. Secondary end points were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, and heart failure readmission. Odds ratios ( ORs ) and 95% confidence intervals ( CIs ) were computed. Random effects model was used and heterogeneity was considered if I 2 >25. Six studies (n=1253 patients) were included in the analysis. There was a significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events ( OR , 0.54; 95% CI , 0.32–0.91), cardiovascular mortality ( OR , 0.43; 95% CI , 0.20–0.95), and heart failure readmissions ( OR , 0.57; 95% CI , 0.36–0.89), favoring the patients in the CTO percutaneous coronary intervention group. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for all‐cause mortality ( OR , 0.47; 95% CI , 0.22–1.00), myocardial infarction ( OR , 0.78; 95% CI , 0.41–1.46), repeat revascularization ( OR , 1.13; 95% CI , 0.56–2.27), and stroke ( OR , 0.51; 95% CI , 0.20–1.33). Conclusions In this meta‐analysis, CTO percutaneous coronary intervention of the noninfarct‐related artery in patients presenting with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction was associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and heart failure readmissions.

BackgroundBivalirudin may be an effective anticoagulation alternative to heparin as anticoagulant agent in percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve interventions (PAVI). We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing PAVI.MethodsWe conducted an electronic database search of all published data. The primary efficacy endpoints were all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety endpoints include major and life‐threatening bleed according to VARC and BARC bleeding, blood transfusion, vascular complications, and acute kidney injury. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed using the Mantel‐Haenszel method.ResultsThree studies (n = 1690 patients) were included, one randomized trial and two observational studies. There was a significant difference favoring bivalirudin over heparin for myocardial infarction (OR 0.41, 95%CI 0.20‐0.87). There was no significant difference in all‐cause mortality at 30 days (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.62‐1.52), cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.52‐2.05), stroke (OR 1.23, 95%CI 0.62‐2.46), vascular complications (OR 0.96, 95%CI 0.70‐1.32), acute kidney injury (OR 1.03, 95%CI 0.53‐2.00), blood transfusion (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45‐1.01), major and life‐threatening bleed (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.37‐1.49), and BARC bleeding (OR 0.52, 95%CI 0.23‐1.18).ConclusionsIn patient undergoing aortic valve interventions, no difference was seen between the use of bivalirudin and heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent, except for a significant lower myocardial infarction events when bivalirudin was used. Further large randomized trials are needed to confirm current results.

Coronary artery aneurysm is defined as a coronary dilation that exceeds the diameter of adjacent segments or the diameter of the patient's largest normal coronary vessel by 1.5×. It is an uncommon disease that has been diagnosed with increasing frequency since the widespread appearance of coronary angiography. The published incidence varies from 1.5% to 5%, suggesting male dominance and a predilection for the right coronary artery. Although several causes have been described, atherosclerosis accounts for ≥50% of coronary aneurysms in adults. Reported complications include thrombosis and distal embolization, rupture, and vasospasm, causing ischemia, heart failure, or arrhythmias. The natural history and prognosis remain unknown, as definitive data are scarce. Controversies persist regarding the use of medical management (antithrombotic therapy) or interventional/surgical procedures. Only some case reports or small case series are available about this condition. The Coronary Artery Aneurysm Registry (CAAR; http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02563626) is a multicenter international ambispective registry that aims to provide insights on anatomic, epidemiologic, and clinical aspects of this substantially unknown entity. In addition, the registry will assess management strategies (conservative, interventional, or surgical) and their short‐ and long‐term results in a large cohort of patients.Clinical Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02563626.

Aim: Platelet function is intricately linked to the pathophysiology of critical Illness, and some studies have shown that antiplatelet therapy (APT) may decrease mortality and incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in these patients. Our objective was to understand the efficacy of APT by conducting a meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis using PubMed, Central, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register, the ClinicalTrials.gov Website, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they investigated critically ill patients receiving antiplatelet therapy and mentioned the outcomes being studied (mortality, duration of hospitalization, ARDS, and need for mechanical ventilation). Results: We found that there was a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients on APT compared to control (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70–0.97). Both the incidence of acute lung injury/ARDS (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.57–0.78) and need for mechanical ventilation (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.60–0.91) were lower in the antiplatelet group. No significant difference in duration of hospitalization was observed between the two groups (standardized mean difference: −0.02; 95% CI: −0.11–0.07). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that critically ill patients who are on APT have an improved survival, decreased incidence of ARDS, and decreased need for mechanical ventilation.