Girardo, Marlene

Background: Conduction abnormality post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains clinically significant and usually requires chronic pacing. The effect of right ventricular (RV) pacing post-TAVI on clinical outcomes warrants further studies. Methods: We identified 147 consecutive patients who required chronic RV pacing after a successful TAVI procedure and propensity-matched these patients according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score to a control group of patients that did not require RV pacing post-TAVI. We evaluated routine echocardiographic measurements and performed offline speckle-tracking strain analysis for the purpose of this study on transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) images performed at 9 to 18 months post-TAVI. Results: The final study population comprised 294 patients (pacing group n = 147 and non-pacing group n = 147), with a mean age of 81 ± 7 years, 59% male; median follow-up was 354 days. There were more baseline conduction abnormalities in the pacing group compared to the non-pacing group (56.5% vs. 41.5%. p = 0.01). Eighty-eight patients (61.6%) in the pacing group required RV pacing due to atrioventricular (AV) conduction block post-TAVI. The mean RV pacing burden was 44% in the pacing group. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was similar at follow-up in the pacing vs. non-pacing groups (57 ± 13.0%, 59 ± 11% p = 0.31); however, LV global longitudinal strain (−12.7 ± 3.5% vs. −18.8 ± 2.7%, p < 0.0001), LV apical strain (−12.9 ± 5.5% vs. 23.2 ± 9.2%, p < 0.0001), and mid-LV strain (−12.7 ± 4.6% vs. −18.7 ± 3.4%, p < 0.0001) were significantly worse in the pacing vs. non-pacing groups. Conclusions: Chronic RV pacing after the TAVI procedure is associated with subclinical LV systolic dysfunction within 1.5 years of follow-up.

Background: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) is increasing in Hispanic or Latino adults. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) score to identify current risk of T2D was developed with limited Hispanic or Latino representation. Therefore, we sought to validate the ADA score in a cohort of Hispanic or Latino adults. Methods: At enrollment in the Sangre Por Salud Biobank, 3,625 Hispanic or Latino adults from Phoenix, Arizona completed a baseline questionnaire. Current risk of undiagnosed T2D was based on non-laboratory risk factors and ADA score ≥5 (Table). Participants also completed T2D screening (ie, fasting glucose, 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test, and/or hemoglobin A1c). Undiagnosed T2D was based on 'no self-reported T2D but meeting T2D diagnostic’ criteria. Multivariable logistic regression analyzed associations of ADA risk factors and undiagnosed T2D, and model performance was based on sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Results: At enrollment, 7.3% of participants had undiagnosed T2D (n=265/3,625). In multivariable analysis, most risk factors described for the ADA score were significantly associated with T2D, except for sex, which showed no association. ADA score ≥5 had sensitivity 50%, specificity 79%, PPV 18%, and NPV 95%. However, ADA score ≥4 had sensitivity 72%, specificity 61%, PPV 14%, and NPV 96%. ADA score ≥4 vs ≥5 identified 22% (n=59) additional cases of undiagnosed T2D. Furthermore, using the revised definition for elevated blood pressure (>120/80 mmHg) vs ≥140/90 mmHg (current ADA score) further improved the ADA score ≥4 (sensitivity 81%; specificity 52%). Other scores had lower performance using both hypertension definitions. Conclusion: In Hispanic or Latino adults, a lower ADA score than currently recommended identified additional cases of undiagnosed T2D. The ADA score requires validation and recalibration, including for the updated hypertension guidelines.

Abstract Objective To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. Background Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16‐month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age‐ and sex‐matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. Results In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0–3.2]; p = 0.338). Conclusions In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.

Introduction: Peripheral artery disease impacts 202 million patients worldwide and is commonly diagnosed via ankle-brachial index. PAD is associated with endothelial dysfunction, which is also common to venous thromboembolism formation. Despite the suspected overlap in pathogenesis, few studies exist investigating the association between these pathologies. We investigated whether PAD with low or elevated ABI is an independent risk factor for VTE. Methods: We reviewed medical records of patients ≥18 years old undergoing ABI measurement with or without PAD symptoms from 01/01/1996 to 08/31/2018 and classified patients by ABI: severely low (ABI 0.00-0.39), moderately low (0.40-0.69), mildly low (0.70-0.90), borderline (0.91-0.99), normal (1.00-1.40), and elevated (>1.40). The primary outcome was incident VTE event after ABI measurement, defined as deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. Multivariable Cox proportional regression was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals after adjusting for age, sex, active smoking, cancer or VTE history, thrombophilia, anticoagulation, and revascularization within 14 days of VTE. Results: In 39,384 unique patients (mean age 66.3±14.2 years, median follow-up 34 months), 5,141 VTE events were observed. Increased VTE risk was observed in PAD patients with severely low ABI (HR 1.26, 95%CI [1.02, 1.29]) compared to patients with normal ABI after multivariable regression. Patients with elevated ABI did not demonstrate an increased risk of VTE. Conclusions: Patients with severe PAD are at higher risk for VTE than patients with normal ABI, which may be due to a multifactorial pathophysiology of profound endothelial injury as well as immobility due to claudication. Further exploration of VTE incidence in patients with severe PAD stratified by functional status is warranted to determine the optimal strategy to minimize thromboembolic morbidity and mortality in this population.

OBJECTIVES Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is being increasingly utilized during orthotopic liver transplantation to guide perioperative management. Obstacles of improving TEE utilization include the challenge of becoming familiar with the TEE machine, optimizing TEE images, and translating skills acquired in didactic or simulator center-based training into clinical use. METHODS In an effort to expand TEE utilization and improve workflow among the liver transplantation (LT) anesthesiologists at our institution, a LT-specific TEE guide was created to serve as a reference and educational tool during LT. A 26-question survey was distributed to all LT anesthesiologists before and 6 months after implementation of the LT-specific TEE guide. RESULTS All seven LT anesthesiologists completed the survey questions during the study period. No statistically significant difference was detected in participant-reported confidence in optimizing targeted TEE views, performing technical aspects of the exam, navigating the knobs on the TEE machine, or in ability to identify abnormal cardiac pathology during the study period. One participant became basic-TEE certified during the study period. CONCLUSIONS Implementing a liver transplant-specific TEE guide is a strategy to expand TEE utilization, encourage longitudinal TEE education and reinforce concepts learned from hands-on education sessions; however, we did not detect a difference in participant-reported confidence of performing a TEE exam, ability to identify abnormal cardiac pathology or altering workflow. Further studies with larger sample sizes will be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of a LT-specific TEE guide.

Background: We sought to characterize the outcomes of patients with primary pulmonary coccidioidomycosis whose post-treatment complement fixation (CF) titer increased by more than 2 dilutions (serologic rebound) after discontinuation of antifungal treatment. Methods. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with primary pulmonary coccidioidomycosis and identified immunocompetent, non-pregnant adults who received antifungal treatment and then experienced a serologic rebound after treatment discontinuation. We compared these to matched controls similarly treated who did not have serologic rebound. Results. Fifty-eight patients experienced serologic rebound. Thirty (52%) of these were associated with symptoms. Nine were associated with radiographic progression. The median time to serologic rebound was 3.5 months. Antifungal treatment was reinitiated in 37 (63.7%) patients. Four of the 58 (6.9%) with rebounded serology subsequently developed extra-thoracic dissemination. Compared with matched controls, patients with rebounded serology were more likely to have post-treatment symptoms, reinitiation of antifungal therapy, and a longer duration of clinical follow-up. However, they were not more likely to experience extra-thoracic dissemination. Conclusion: Serological rebound, manifested in at least 2-dilution rise of CF titer following antifungal treatment of primary pulmonary coccidioidomycosis, was uncommon, but resulted in longer clinical follow-up. Continued monitoring of such patients is important to identify the patients who develop subsequent symptoms, as well as extra-thoracic dissemination.

Summary: Background: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a risk factor for adverse limb events (LE) and cardiovascular events (CVE) that coexists with type 1 (T1) and 2 (T2) diabetes mellitus (DM). Little is known about comparative risk of LE and CVE in T1/T2 DM patients with PAD. Patients and methods: We queried our database of 40,144 patients ≥18 years old who underwent ankle brachial index (ABI) measurement from 01/1996-02/2020. We isolated T1/T2 DM patients with PAD diagnosed by ankle brachial index (ABI; low [<1.0] or elevated [>1.4]) and retrieved demographics including glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Primary outcomes were LE (critical limb ischemia/vascular amputation) and CVE (myocardial infarction/ischemic stroke). All-cause mortality was a secondary outcome. Multivariable Cox proportional regression yielded hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) after adjusting for pertinent risk factors including age, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and HbA1c. Results: Our study found 10,156 patients with PAD and DM (34% T1DM, 66% T2DM) with median follow-up time 34 mo (IQR 85 mo). T1DM patients were younger than T2DM (mean age 67 vs. 70 years), with higher median HbA1c (7.7 [IQR 1.9] vs. 6.7% [IQR 1.6]), and more prevalent hypertension, hyperlipidemia, CAD, and CKD. Antiplatelet and statin use was equivocal. Elevated ABI was more common in T1DM (47 vs. 28%). LE occurred in 23% and CVE in 12% patients. LE risk was higher in T1 than T2 DM patients (HR 1.58 [95% CI 1.44, 1.73], p<0.0001), but CVE and all-cause mortality were equivocal. These observations were preserved across ABI and HbA1c subgroup analyses. Conclusions: PAD patients with T1DM had a higher LE risk than those with T2DM, even after adjustment for glycemic control and pertinent risk factors, but CVE risk and all-cause mortality were equivocal. These data suggest a potential role for more intensive LE risk modification in PAD patients with T1DM, but further investigation is needed.