Mohananey, Divyanshu

Abstract Summary A retrospective cohort study of 113,729 IBD patients with low cardiovascular (CV) risk using the US National TriNetX database. Anti-TNF and anti-integrin therapies were linked to reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), while JAK inhibitors showed no increased risk. Background Due to underlying chronic inflammation, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). There is limited data on the role of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and IBD medications on MACE. We aim to determine the association between MACE and IBD medications in a large national cohort of IBD patients with low baseline CV risk. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study between January 1, 2015—November 15, 2023 using the TriNetX database. Using logistic regression analysis, IBD patients exposed to biologics and small molecules were assessed for outcomes of individual and composite MACE [myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)/coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)]. Outcomes were adjusted for demographics, non-advanced IBD therapies, statin use, CV risk factors, and prior history of coronary artery disease (CAD). Results We identified 113,729 IBD patients with an average age of 42 years and low prevalence of CV risk factors (5-6%). Anti-TNF therapy was associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of composite MACE [adjusted OR (aOR) 0.795, 95% CI 0.670-0.930, p = 0.005] and PCI/CABG [aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.274-0.562, p = 0.002] and anti-integrin therapy was associated with a decreased risk of composite MACE [aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.580-0.980, p = 0.035]. Anti-IL12/23 and JAK inhibitors showed no increased risk of MACE. Conclusion In a cohort of young IBD patients with low CV risk, use of anti-TNF and anti-integrins is associated with a decreased risk of MACE and there was no increased risk of MACE with JAK inhibitors.

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and its association with in‐hospital outcomes after endovascular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (EV‐TAVR).BackgroundTAVR is an established treatment for patients at prohibitive, high, or intermediate surgical risk. PAD is a significant comorbidity in the determination of surgical risk. However, data on association of PAD with outcomes after EV‐TAVR are limited.MethodsPatients in the National Inpatient Sample who underwent EV‐TAVR between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2015 were evaluated. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 51,685 patients underwent EV‐TAVR during the study period. Of these, 12,740 (24.6%) had a coexisting diagnosis of PAD. The adjusted odds for in‐hospital mortality [OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.83–1.41)], permanent pacemaker implantation [OR 0.98 (0.85–1.14)], conversion to open aortic valve replacement [OR 1.05 (0.49–2.26)], or acute myocardial infarction [OR 1.31(0.99–1.71)] were not different in patients with versus without PAD. However, patients with PAD had greater adjusted odds of vascular complications [OR 1.80 (1.50–2.16)], major bleeding [OR 1.20 (1.09–1.34)], acute kidney injury (AKI) [OR 1.19 (1.05–1.36)], cardiac complications [aOR 1.21 (1.01–1.44)], and stroke [OR 1.39(1.10–1.75)] compared with patients without PAD. Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer for patients with PAD [7.23 (0.14) days vs. 7.11 (0.1) days, p < 0.001].ConclusionOf patients undergoing EV‐TAVR, ~25% have coexisting PAD. PAD was not associated with increased risk of in‐hospital mortality but was associated with higher risk of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, stroke, cardiac complications, and longer LOS.

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.

AbstractBackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is typically performed under general anesthesia (GA). However, there is increasing data supporting the safety of performing TAVR under local anesthesia/conscious sedation (LA). We performed a meta‐analysis to gain better understanding of the safety and efficacy of LA versus GA in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR.Methods and ResultsWe comprehensively searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Effect sizes were summarized using risk ratios (RRs) difference of the mean (DM), and 95% CIs (confidence intervals) for dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. Twenty‐six studies and 10,572 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. The use of LA for TAVR was associated with lower overall 30‐day mortality (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.93; P = 0.01), use of inotropic/vasopressor drugs (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28–0.72; P < 0.001), hospital length of stay (LOS) (DM, −2.09; 95% CI, −3.02 to −1.16; P < 0.001), intensive care unit LOS (DM, −0.18; 95% CI, −0.31 to −0.04; P = 0.01), procedure time (DM, −25.02; 95% CI, −32.70 to −17.35; P < 0.001); and fluoroscopy time (DM, −1.63; 95% CI, −3.02 to −0.24; P = 0.02). No differences were observed between LA and GA for stroke, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, paravalvular leak, vascular complications, major bleeding, procedural success, conduction abnormalities, and annular rupture.ConclusionOur meta‐analysis suggests that use of LA for TAVR is associated with a lower 30‐day mortality, shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy time, ICU LOS, hospital length of stay, and reduced need for inotropic support.

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.