Meta-Analysis Comparing Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Plain Old Balloon Angioplasty for In-Stent Restenosis of Coronary Arteries.

Despite the advent of newer stents, in-stent restenosis has been a persistent and formidable challenge. Trials have demonstrated the superiority of drug-coated balloons over plain old balloon angioplasty. A recent AGENT IDE trial highlighted the need for a more comprehensive understanding; therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to elucidate their respective clinical outcomes. A literature search was conducted by 2 investigators (SS and MH) using MEDLINE (EMBASE and PubMed) using a systematic search strategy by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) until November 1, 2023. CRAN-R software was used for statistical analysis. The quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (Supplementary Table 5). We included 6 studies with a total of 1,171 patients. Our analysis showed decreased odds of multiple outcomes with statistically significant results, including target vessel revascularization (odds ratio [OR] 0.33, confidence interval [CI] 0.19 to 0.57), target vessel failure (OR 0.30, CI 0.09 to 0.99), target lesion revascularization (OR 0.22, CI 0.10 to 0.46), restenosis (OR 0.1343, CI 0.06 to 0.27), and major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.2 CI 0.12 to 0.37). Although myocardial infraction and all-cause mortality showed decreased odds with all-cause mortality at 0.8 (95% CI 0.363 to 2.09), and myocardial infarction at 0.6 (95% CI 0.0349 to 1.07), the reductions did not reach statistical significance. Our analysis by scrutinizing 6 randomized controlled trials favored drug-coated balloons over plain old balloon angioplasty. However, extensive research for deeper understanding cannot be overemphasized.

Trends and cardiovascular outcomes of Takotsubo syndrome with cardiogenic shock vs. mixed cardiogenic and septic shock: a nationwide propensity matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Takotsubo syndrome (TTS), also known as stress-induced cardiomyopathy, can be complicated by shock. The outcomes of patients with TTS complicated with cardiogenic shock (CS) versus mixed cardiogenic and septic shock (MS) is not known. METHODS: We queried Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2009-2020 to compare TTS patients with CS and MS using International Classification of Disease, Ninth & Tenth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD- 9 & 10-CM) coding. In-hospital outcomes were compared using one: one propensity score matched (PSM) analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of 23,126 patients with TTS 17,132 (74%) had CS, and 6,269 (26%) had MS. The mean age was 67 years in CS and 66 years in MS, and majority of patients were female (n = 17,775, 77%). On adjusted multivariate analysis, MS patients had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.36-1.52), AKI (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.48-1.58), pressor requirement (aOR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25-1.50). However, had lower odds of MCS use (aOR 0.44, 95% CI 0.40-0.48) and cardiac arrest (aOR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.90) (p-value <0.0001). Mean LOS and inflation-adjusted hospital charges were higher in MS. CONCLUSION: MS in the setting of TTS have higher rates of in-hospital mortality, AKI, and pressor requirements.

Short-Term Outcomes of Cardiac Arrhythmias Among COVID-19 Patients: A Propensity Matched National Study.

The risk of arrhythmia is high in patients with COVID-19. The current literature is limited in understanding the clinical impact of arrhythmias and the extent of healthcare utilization in COVID-19 patients. The Nationwide In-patient Sample Database (NIS) from 2019 to 2020 was queried to identify COVID-19 patients who developed arrhythmias vs those without. Multivariate regression for adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and propensity score matching (PSM) were done to compare outcomes among both cohorts. A total of 1,664,240 patients (weighted) were hospitalized with COVID-19 infection, 380,915 (22.89%) of whom were diagnosed with an arrhythmia. After propensity matching COVID-19 with arrhythmias had higher rates of in-hospital mortality (22.4% vs 13.5%, P < 0.001), acute kidney injury (PSM 39.4% vs 35.7%, P < 0.001), acute heart failure (AHF) (18.2% vs 12.6%, P < 0.001), acute stroke (0.76% vs 0.57%, P < 0.001), cardiogenic shock (1.38% vs 0.5%, P < 0.001), cardiac arrest (5.26% vs 2.3%, P < 0.001) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (12.8% vs 7.8%, P < 0.001), intracerebral hemorrhage (0.63% vs 0.45%, P < 0.001), major bleeding (2.6% vs 1.8%, P < 0.001) and endotracheal intubation (17.04% vs 10.17% < 0.001) compared to arrhythmias without COVID-19. This cohort also had lower odds of receiving interventions such as cardiac pacing (aOR 0.15 95% Cl 0.13-0.189 P < 0.001), cardioversion (aOR 0.43 95% CI 0.40-0.46, P < 0.001), and defibrillator (aOR 0.087 95% Cl 0.061-0.124, P < 0.001) compared to arrhythmia patients without COVID-19. Cardiac arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 resulted in longer length of hospital stay and higher total costs of hospitalizations. Arrhythmias associated with COVID-19 had worse clinical outcomes with an increased rate of in-hospital mortality, longer length of hospital stay, and higher total cost. These patients also had lower odds of receiving interventions during the index hospitalization.