Citations

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that is wreaking havoc on the health and economy of much of human civilization. Electrophysiologists have been impacted personally and professionally by this global catastrophe. In this joint article from representatives of the Heart Rhythm Society, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Heart Association, we identify the potential risks of exposure to patients, allied healthcare staff, industry representatives, and hospital administrators. We also describe the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac arrhythmias and methods of triage based on acuity and patient comorbidities. We provide guidance for managing invasive and noninvasive electrophysiology procedures, clinic visits, and cardiac device interrogations. In addition, we discuss resource conservation and the role of telemedicine in remote patient care along with management strategies for affected patients.

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement using aortic transcatheter heart valves has recently become an alternative for patients with degenerated mitral bioprostheses, failed surgical repairs with annuloplasty rings or severe mitral annular calcification who are poor surgical candidates. Outcomes of these procedures are collected in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology/Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. A comprehensive analysis of mitral valve-in-valve (MViV), mitral valve-in-ring (MViR), and valve-in-mitral annular calcification (ViMAC) outcomes has not been performed. We sought to evaluate short-term outcomes of early experience with MViV, MViR, and ViMAC in the United States. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Results: Nine hundred three high-risk patients (median Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 10%) underwent MViV (n=680), MViR (n=123), or ViMAC (n=100) between March 2013 and June 2017 at 172 hospitals. Median age was 75 years, 59.2% female. Technical and procedural success were higher in MViV. Left ventricular outflow tract obstruction occurred more frequently with ViMAC (ViMAC=10%, MViR=4.9%, MViV=0.7%; P <0.001). In-hospital mortality (MViV=6.3%, MViR=9%, ViMAC=18%; P =0.004) and 30-day mortality (MViV=8.1%, MViR=11.5%, ViMAC=21.8%; P =0.003) were higher in ViMAC. At 30-day follow-up, median mean mitral valve gradient was 7 mm Hg, most patients (96.7%) had mitral regurgitation grade ≤1 (+) and were in New York Heart Association class I to II (81.7%). Conclusions: MViV using aortic balloon-expandable transcatheter heart valves is associated with a low complication rate, a 30-day mortality lower than predicted by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, and superior short-term outcomes than MViR and ViMAC. At 30 days, patients in all groups experienced improvement of symptoms, and valve performance remained stable. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02245763.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for DRG stimulation.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsDRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies.ConclusionsModerate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

AbstractIntroductionPeyronie's disease (PD) is characterized by pain, deformity, sexual dysfunction, and psychological bother. Several treatments are available with varying levels of efficacy, and significant limitations exist with the currently available literature.AimTo explore modern-era methodological challenges inherent to PD research as they pertain to intervention studies.MethodsWe performed a critical review of the PD intervention literature to identify common methodological challenges with emphasis on aspects of patient assessment and treatment outcomes, study design, and statistical analysis. The key objective was to provide an impetus on which to build future research protocols, rather than focus on weaknesses with any individual studies.Main Outcome MeasureExpert opinion was used to summarize limitations with commonly reported objective outcomes such as penile curvature, girth, and length along with imaging modalities and objective questionnaires. Appropriate study design and statistical analysis were also reviewed to discuss common pitfalls in the PD literature.ResultsThere are multiple shortcomings inherent to studying objective PD outcomes such as penile curvature, girth, and length. These include lack of standardized protocols for preintervention and postintervention assessment, interobserver and intraobserver variability, and lack of consistent definitions for what defines an objective outcome as clinically “meaningful” for patients. Similarly, imaging studies including penile ultrasound are subject to marked variation, thereby limiting their utility to measure predefined primary or secondary study outcomes including cavernosal artery hemodynamics and penile plaque size. Objective and validated questionnaires such as the Peyronie's Disease Questionnaire and International Index of Erectile Function require that patients have recently engaged in sexual activity, which is challenging for many patients as a result of penile deformity with PD. Finally, careful study design and statistical analysis (including appropriate study power) are imperative to ensure reliable results. Current shortcomings in the majority of studies contribute to the low level of evidence available for most PD interventions.Clinical ImplicationsFuture PD intervention studies should focus on optimizing study design and statistical analysis. Furthermore, authors must incorporate standardized protocols for assessing preintervention and postintervention outcomes.Strength & LimitationsThe current analysis and recommendations for future study are based on the expertise and opinion of the manuscript authors.ConclusionMultiple areas of weakness in study design, statistical analysis, and patient outcomes assessment limit the reliability of data derived from PD intervention studies in the modern era. The global themes identified herein should serve as a basis upon which to build future research protocols.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for SCS.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year’s duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsSCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT).ConclusionsHigh-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.