Citations

AbstractInformation about the effects of angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy on the hemodynamic and cardiac structure in patients with chronic aortic regurgitation (CAR) and isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is limited.This study planned to test the hypothesis that l-arginine could further enhance the beneficial effect of an ARB, losartan, and provide a favorable effect on the natural history of CAR and ISH.Sixty patients with CAR and ISH were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind trial comparing hemodynamic and ultrasonic change in two treatment arms: losartan + l-arginine and losartan-only treated groups. Serial echocardiographic and hemodynamic studies were evaluated before and after treatment.Both groups had a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), LV mass index (LVMI), and LV mean wall stress after 6- and 12-month treatment (p <0.01 in all comparisons). Both groups had a significant increase in LV ejection fraction and exercise duration after 6- and 12-month treatment (p < 0.01 in all comparisons). Using multivariate linear regression analysis, only losartan + l-arginine therapy achieved a significantly lower LVESVI (38.89 ± 0.23 mL/m2), LVEDVI (102.3 ± 0.3 mL/m2), LVMI (107.6 ± 0.3 g/m2), SBP (123.5 ± 1.0 mm Hg), and greater exercise duration (7.38 ± 0.02 minutes) than those of the losartan-only treated groups (p <0.01 in all comparisons).These findings suggest that early co-administrative strategy provides a beneficial approach to favorably influence the natural history of CAR.

AbstractDespite the widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention and modern antithrombotic therapy, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains the leading cause of death in the United States and remains one of the most important causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Certain high-risk patients present a challenge for diagnosis and treatment. The widespread adoption of primary percutaneous intervention in addition to modern antithrombotic therapy has resulted in substantial improvement in the short- and long-term prognosis following STEMI. In this review, we aim to provide a brief analysis of the state-of-the-art treatment for patients presenting with STEMI, focusing on cardiogenic shock, current treatment and controversies, cardiac arrest, and diagnosis and treatment of mechanical complications, as well as multivessel and left main-related STEMI.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) adversely impacts health-related quality of life (hrQoL). While some patients demonstrate improvements in hrQoL, the factors associated with large improvements in hrQoL are not well described. Methods: We assessed factors associated with a 1-year increase in the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life score of 1 SD (≥18 points; 3× clinically important difference), among outpatients in the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation I registry. Results: Overall, 28% (181/636) of patients had such a hrQoL improvement. Compared with patients not showing large hrQoL improvement, they were of similar age (median 73 versus 74, P =0.3), equally likely to be female (44% versus 48%, P =0.3), but more likely to have newly diagnosed AF at baseline (18% versus 8%; P =0.0004), prior antiarrhythmic drug use (52% versus 40%, P =0.005), baseline antiarrhythmic drug use (34.8% versus 26.8%, P =0.045), and more likely to undergo AF-related procedures during follow-up (AF ablation: 6.6% versus 2.0%, P =0.003; cardioversion: 12.2% versus 5.9%, P =0.008). In multivariable analysis, a history of alcohol abuse (adjusted OR, 2.41; P =0.01) and increased baseline diastolic blood pressure (adjusted OR, 1.23 per 10-point increase and >65 mm Hg; P =0.04) were associated with large improvements in hrQoL at 1 year, whereas patients with prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and peripheral arterial disease were less likely to improve ( P <0.05 for each). Conclusions: In this national registry of patients with AF, potentially treatable AF risk factors are associated with large hrQoL improvement, whereas less reversible conditions appeared negatively associated with hrQoL improvement. Understanding which patients are most likely to have large hrQoL improvement may facilitate targeting interventions for high-value care that optimizes patient-reported outcomes in AF. Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

AbstractDoxorubicin is a standard treatment option for breast cancer, lymphoma, and leukemia, but its benefits are limited by its potential for cardiotoxicity. The primary objective of this study was to compare cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI) versus echocardiography (ECHO) to detect a reduction in left ventricular ejection function, suggestive of doxorubicin cardiotoxicity. We studied eligible patients who were 18 years or older, who had breast cancer or lymphoma, and who were offered treatment with doxorubicin with curative intent dosing of 240 to 300 mg/m2 body surface area between March 1, 2009 and October 31, 2013. Patients underwent baseline CMRI and ECHO. Both imaging studies were repeated after four cycles of treatment. Ejection fraction (EF) calculated by both methods was compared and analyzed with the inferential statistical Student's t test. Twenty-eight eligible patients were enrolled. Two patients stopped participating in the study before undergoing baseline CMRI; 26 patients underwent baseline ECHO and CMRI. Eight of those 26 patients declined posttreatment studies, so the final study population was 18 patients. There was a significant difference in EF pre- and posttreatment in the CMRI group (p = 0.009) versus the ECHO group that showed no significant differences in EF (p = NS). It appears that CMRI is superior to ECHO for detecting doxorubicin-induced reductions in cardiac systolic function. However, ECHO is less expensive and more convenient for patients because of its noninvasive character and bedside practicality. A larger study is needed to confirm these findings.

AbstractPulmonary embolism (PE) affects over 300,000 individuals each year in the United States and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Improvements in the diagnostic performance and availability of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography and D-dimer testing have facilitated the evaluation of patients with suspected PE. High clinical suspicion is required in those with risk factors and/or those that manifest signs or symptoms of venous thromboembolic disease, with validated clinical risk scores such as the Wells and modified Wells score or the PE rule-out criteria helpful in estimating the likelihood for PE. For those with confirmed PE, patients should be categorized and triaged according to the presence or absence of shock or hypotension. Normotensive patients can be further risk-stratified using validated prognostic risk scores, as well as by using imaging and cardiac biomarkers, with those having either signs of right ventricular dysfunction on imaging studies and/or abnormal cardiac biomarkers categorized as being at intermediate-risk and requiring close monitoring and hospital admission. Early discharge and/or home therapy are possible in those that do not manifest any high-risk features. The initial treatment for most patients that are stable consists of anticoagulation, with advanced therapies such as thrombolysis, catheter-based therapies, or surgical embolectomy deferred for those at high risk. Given the heterogeneous presentations of PE and various management strategies available, the development of multidisciplinary PE response teams has emerged to help facilitate decision-making in these patients.