Deshmukh, Abhishek

Purpose: In aortic stenosis patients referred for surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR), the evidence of diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has been limited. The objective of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of CCTA for significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients referred for AVR using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the gold standard. Materials and Methods: We searched databases for all diagnostic studies of CCTA in patients referred for AVR, which reported diagnostic testing characteristics on patient-based analysis required to pool summary sensitivity, specificity, positive-likelihood ratio, and negative-likelihood ratio. Significant CAD in both CCTA and ICA was defined by >50% stenosis in any coronary artery, coronary stent, or bypass graft. Results: Thirteen studies evaluated 1498 patients (mean age, 74 y; 47% men; 76% transcatheter AVR). The pooled prevalence of significant stenosis determined by ICA was 43%. Hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic analysis demonstrated a summary area under curve of 0.96. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and positive-likelihood and negative-likelihood ratios of CCTA in identifying significant stenosis determined by ICA were 95%, 79%, 4.48, and 0.06, respectively. In subgroup analysis, the diagnostic profiles of CCTA were comparable between surgical and transcatheter AVR. Conclusions: Despite the higher prevalence of significant CAD in patients with aortic stenosis than with other valvular heart diseases, our meta-analysis has shown that CCTA has a suitable diagnostic accuracy profile as a gatekeeper test for ICA. Our study illustrates a need for further study of the potential role of CCTA in preoperative planning for AVR.

AbstractBackgroundThere are sparse clinical data on the procedural trends, outcomes and readmission rates following FDA approval and expansion of Transcatheter mitral valve repair/MitraClip®. Whether a complex new technology can be disseminated safely and quickly is controversial.MethodsThe study cohort was derived from the National Readmission Data (NRD) 2013–14. MitraClip® was identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐9‐CM) codes. The primary outcome was a composite of in‐hospital mortality + procedural complications. Secondary outcome included 30‐day readmissions. Hierarchical two level logistic models were used to evaluate study outcomes.ResultsOur analysis included 2003 MitraClip® procedures. Overall in‐hospital mortality was 3.9%. As expected, there was a significant increase in procedural volume post‐FDA approval. Importantly, a corresponding downward trend in mortality and procedural complications was observed. Significant predictors of in‐hospital mortality and procedural complications included the use of vasopressors (P <0.001) and hemodynamic support (P < 0.001). Higher hospital volume (≥10 MitraClips/year) was associated with lower in‐hospital mortality and complications (P = 0.02). There were 304 (15.1%) 30‐day readmissions, with heart failure being the most common cause of readmission. Elective procedures had lower in‐hospital mortality (P < 0.001) and lower readmission rates (P = 0.011) compared with nonelective procedures.ConclusionA significant increase in MitraClip® procedural volumes occurred post‐FDA approval. Overall morbidity and mortality were low and trended downwards. Hospital procedure volume ≥10 cases were associated with lower mortality and overall complication rates. These data suggest a successful roll out of a very complex novel structural heart procedure.

Background: Recognition of rates and causes of hard, patient-centered outcomes of death and cerebrovascular events (CVEs) after heart rhythm disorder management (HRDM) procedures is an essential step for the development of quality improvement programs in electrophysiology laboratories. Our primary aim was to assess and characterize death and CVEs (stroke or transient ischemic attack) after HRDM procedures over a 17-year period. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing HRDM procedures between January 2000 and November 2016 at the Mayo Clinic. Patients from all 3 tertiary academic centers (Rochester, Phoenix, and Jacksonville) were included in the study. All in-hospital deaths and CVEs after HRDM procedures were identified and were further characterized as directly or indirectly related to the HRDM procedure. Subgroup analysis of death and CVE rates was performed for ablation, device implantation, electrophysiology study, lead extraction, and defibrillation threshold testing procedures. Results: A total of 48 913 patients (age, 65.7±6.6 years; 64% male) who underwent a total of 62 065 HRDM procedures were included in the study. The overall mortality and CVE rates in the cohort were 0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31–0.42) and 0.12% (95% CI, 0.09–0.16), respectively. Patients undergoing lead extraction had the highest overall mortality rate at 1.9% (95% CI, 1.34–2.61) and CVE rate at 0.62% (95% CI, 0.32–1.07). Among patients undergoing HRDM procedures, 48% of deaths directly related to the HDRM procedure were among patients undergoing device implantation procedures. Overall, cardiac tamponade was the most frequent direct cause of death (40%), and infection was the most common indirect cause of death (29%). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.76%, with the highest being in lead extraction procedures (3.08%), followed by device implantation procedures (0.94%). Conclusions: Half of the deaths directly related to an HRDM procedure were among the patients undergoing device implantation procedures, with cardiac tamponade being the most common cause of death. This highlights the importance of the development of protocols for the quick identification and management of cardiac tamponade even in procedures typically believed to be lower risk such as device implantation.

Background Sex‐specific effectiveness of rivaroxaban ( RIVA ), dabigatran ( DABI ), and warfarin in reducing myocardial infarction ( MI ), heart failure ( HF ), and all‐cause mortality among patients with atrial fibrillation are not known. We assessed sex‐specific associations of RIVA , DABI , or warfarin use with the risk of MI , HF , and all‐cause mortality among patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results Medicare beneficiaries (men: 65 734 [44.8%], women: 81 135 [55.2%]) with atrial fibrillation who initiated oral anticoagulants formed the study cohort. Inpatient admissions for MI , HF , and all‐cause mortality were compared between the 3 drugs separately for men and women using 3‐way propensity‐matched samples. In men, RIVA use was associated with a reduced risk of MI admissions compared with warfarin use (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval ( CI ): 0.59 [0.38–0.91]), with a trend towards reduced risk compared with DABI use (0.67 [0.44–1.01]). In women, there were no significant differences in the risk of MI admissions across all 3 anticoagulants. In both sexes, RIVA use and DABI use were associated with reduced risk of HF admissions (men: RIVA ; 0.75 [0.63–0.89], DABI ; 0.81 [0.69–0.96]) (women: RIVA ; 0.64 [0.56–0.74], DABI ; 0.73 [0.63–0.83]) and all‐cause mortality (men: RIVA ; 0.66 [0.53–0.81], DABI ; 0.75 [0.61–0.93]) (women: RIVA ; 0.76 [0.63–0.91], DABI ; 0.77 [0.64–0.93]) compared with warfarin use. Conclusions RIVA use and DABI use when compared with warfarin use was associated with a reduced risk of HF admissions and all‐cause mortality in both sexes. However, reduced risk of MI admissions noted with RIVA use appears to be limited to men.

AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding the factors associated with early readmissions following atrial flutter (AFL) ablation is critical to reduce the cost and improving the quality of life in AFL patients.MethodThe study cohort was derived from the national readmission database 2013–2014. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD‐9‐CM) diagnosis code 427.32 and procedure code 37.34 were used to identify AFL and catheter ablation, respectively. The primary and secondary outcomes were 90‐day readmission and complications including in‐hospital mortality. Cox proportional regression and hierarchical logistic regression were used to generate the predictors of primary and secondary outcomes respectively. Readmission causes were identified by ICD‐9‐CM code in primary diagnosis field of readmissions.ResultReadmission rate of 18.19% (n = 1,010 with 1,396 readmissions) was noted among AFL patients (n = 5552). Common etiologies for readmission were heart failure (12.23%), atrial fibrillation (11.13%), atrial flutter (8.93%), respiratory complications (9.42%), infections (7.4%), bleeding (7.39%, including GI bleed–4.09% and intracranial bleed–0.79%) and stroke/TIA (1.89%). Multivariate predictors of 90‐day readmission (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval, P value) were preexisting heart failure (1.30, 1.13–1.49, P < 0.001), chronic pulmonary disease (1.37, 1.18–1.58, P < 0.001), anemia (1.23, 1.02–1.49, P = 0.035), malignancy (1.87, 1.40–2.49, P < 0.001), weekend admission compared to weekday admission (1.23, 1.02–1.47, P = 0.029), and length of stay (LOS) ≥5 days (1.39, 1.16–1.65, P < 0.001). Note that 50% of readmissions happened within 30 days of discharge.ConclusionCardiac etiologies remain the most common reason for the readmission after AFL ablation. Identifying high risk patients, careful discharge planning, and close follow‐up postdischarge can potentially reduce readmission rates in AFL ablation patients.

AbstractIntroductionCardiac pacing from the right ventricular apex is associated with detrimental long‐term effects and nonapical pacing locations may be associated with improved outcomes. There is little data regarding complications with nonapical lead positions. The aim of this study was to assess long‐term outcomes and lead‐related complications associated with differing ventricular lead tip position.Methods and resultsAll adult patients who underwent dual‐chamber pacemaker implantation from 2004 to 2014 were included if they had postprocedure chest radiographs amenable to lead position determination. Long‐term outcomes and lead‐related complication rates were recorded. These were compared at 5 years between: (1) apical and septal leads, (2) apical and nonseptal nonapical (NSNA), and (3) apical and septal with >40% ventricular pacing. We retrospectively evaluated 3,450 patients, which included 238 with a septal position and 733 with NSNA lead positions. Septal lead position was associated with a lower mortality compared to apical leads (24% vs. 31%, P = 0.02). In patients with greater than 40% pacing, septal leads were associated with significantly higher rates of incident atrial fibrillation compared to apical leads (49% vs. 34%, P = 0.04). NSNA positions were associated with a significantly higher rate of lead dislodgement (4% vs. 2%, P = 0.005) and need for revision (8% vs. 5%, P = 0.005).ConclusionsSeptal pacemaker lead position is associated with a lower mortality compared to apically placed leads, but a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with higher percentage ventricular pacing. NSNA lead locations are associated with more complications and should be avoided.