Citations

Background— The ROSE AHF trial (Renal Optimization Strategies Evaluation in Acute Heart Failure) found that when compared with placebo, neither low-dose dopamine (2 µg/kg per minute) nor low-dose nesiritide (0.005 μg/kg per minute without bolus) enhanced decongestion or preserved renal function in AHF patients with renal dysfunction. However, there may be differential responses to vasoactive agents in AHF patients with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction (EF). This post hoc analysis examined potential interaction between treatment effect and EF (EF ≤40% versus >40%) on the ROSE AHF end points. Methods and Results— ROSE AHF enrolled AHF patients (n=360; any EF) with renal dysfunction. The coprimary end points were cumulative urine volume and the change in serum cystatin-C in 72 hours. The effect of dopamine (interaction P =0.001) and nesiritide (interaction P =0.039) on urine volume varied by EF group. In heart failure with reduced EF, urine volume was higher with active treatment versus placebo, whereas in heart failure with preserved EF, urine volume was lower with active treatment. The effect of dopamine and nesiritide on weight change, sodium excretion, and incidence of AHF treatment failure also varied by EF group (interaction P <0.05 for all). There was no interaction between vasoactive treatment’s effect and EF on change in cystatin-C. Compared with placebo, dopamine was associated with improved clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced EF and worse clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved EF. With nesiritide, there were no differences in clinical outcomes when compared with placebo in both heart failure with reduced EF and heart failure with preserved EF. Conclusions— In this post hoc analysis of ROSE AHF, the response to vasoactive therapies differed in patients with heart failure with reduced EF and heart failure with preserved EF. Investigations of AHF therapies should assess the potential for differential responses in AHF with preserved versus reduced EF. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01132846.

ObjectivesTo determine the frequency and predictors of pericardial effusion following epicardial sheath removal.BackgroundPericardial effusion can occur following cardiac surgical or interventional procedures including percutaneous epicardial access (EpiAcc), which is increasingly used as part of electrophysiology ablation procedures.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the Mayo Clinic comprehensive electronic medical record was performed from all patients who underwent planned EpiAcc as part of an electrophysiology ablation procedure between January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2013.ResultsOf 144 patients (mean age 51.3 ± 15.5 years, 68% male) who underwent planned EpiAcc as part of an electrophysiology ablation (95.8% pericardial access success rate), seven (4.9%) developed a postoperative pericardial effusion requiring repeat EpiAcc. Inferior access was utilized in 74 (51.4%) patients. Patients with pericardial effusion tended to be younger (41.1 years vs 51.8 years, P = 0.08) and were more likely to have undergone inferior approach access (85.7% vs 49.6%, P = 0.06) than those who did not develop postoperative pericardial effusion. Seventy‐one percent of patients with postoperative pericardial effusion versus 32.1% of patients without postoperative pericardial effusion had a preprocedure ejection fraction ≥55% (P = 0.03). There were no procedural‐related deaths, and no difference in mortality between groups.ConclusionsPostoperative pericardial effusion requiring repeat access/drainage was relatively infrequent, occurring in 4.9% of patients shortly after epicardial procedures. While the majority occur early and therefore require close observation, some patients may present in a delayed manner.

Epicardial Access and ObesityIntroductionPercutaneous epicardial access for ablative therapies is an increasingly common technique utilized for refractory ventricular arrhythmias. There are, however few known data on obesity and complication rates associated with this procedure.Methods and ResultsWe retrospectively reviewed the charts of subjects undergoing epicardial access at Mayo Clinic between January 2004 and June 2013. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic data were collected for each subject, who was then classified into body mass index (BMI) categories as underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese based on a BMI of <18.5, 18.5–24.99, 25–29.99, and ≥30, respectively. Events and complications were recorded, and procedural and clinical success rates were determined.There was no statistically significant difference in access approach, procedural or clinical outcomes, or complications among the BMI categories. Note that 95.1%, 91.7%, and 93.1% derived procedural success among the normal weight, overweight, and obese categories, respectively (P value = 0.81). Similarly, there was no difference in clinical outcomes with success rates of 68.3%, 66.7%, and 75.9% between the respective groups (P value = 0.54). At 5 years, there was a trend toward increased mortality among obese individuals (28.8%) compared to normal weight (8.8%) and overweight (9.8%) patients (P value = 0.139).ConclusionPercutaneous epicardial access, mapping, and ablation can be performed in obese individuals with similar outcomes to those of lower weight category. Obesity should not preclude the use of percutaneous epicardial access when clinically indicated.