The utility of the bilateral temporal artery biopsy for diagnosis of giant cell arteritis.

OBJECTIVE: A surgical temporal artery biopsy (TAB) is the gold standard for diagnosis of giant cell arteritis (GCA). The necessity of performing a bilateral biopsy remains under debate. The primary objective of this study was to assess the rate of discordance between pathology results in patients who underwent bilateral TAB for suspected GCA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent bilateral TAB for the diagnosis of GCA between 2011 and 2020. The primary end point was the rate of discordance between specimens for patients with pathology positive GCA. Secondary end points included assessments of the sensitivity of preoperative temporal artery duplex and the effects of specimen length and specialty of referring provider on the diagnostic yield of the biopsy. RESULTS: During the study period, 310 patients underwent bilateral TAB for the diagnosis of GCA. These patients were primarily female (73.9%), elderly (mean age, 70.8 years), and Caucasian (95.8%). Preoperative symptoms for patients were typically bilateral (59%) and included headache (81%), vision changes (45.2%), and temporal tenderness (32.6%). Most patients (85.2%) were on preoperative steroid therapy at the time of surgical biopsy with a mean preoperative duration of steroid therapy of 15.1 days. Overall, 91 patients (29.4%) had a positive pathologic diagnosis after bilateral TAB. Of these patients, 11 had a positive pathology result in only a single specimen, resulting in a discordance rate of 12.1%. Preoperative temporal artery duplex demonstrated a low sensitivity (27.3%) for identifying patients with pathologic positive disease. There were no significant differences between the pathology-positive and -negative patients in terms of mean surgical specimen length (1.67 cm vs 1.64 cm; P = .67) or the specialty of the referring provider (P = .73). CONCLUSIONS: At our institution, we observed a 12.1% discordance rate between pathology results in patients who underwent bilateral TAB for diagnosis of GCA. A preoperative temporal artery duplex provided little value in identifying patients with biopsy-proven GCA.

Sex disparity in referral for catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AFCA) has been shown to reduce AF burden and improve quality of life. Earlier studies demonstrated that women are less likely to undergo AFCA despite having more AF symptoms. We investigated whether an association exists between referral patterns and this sex disparity. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of outpatients with newly diagnosed AF at a single tertiary referral center. Logistic regression models adjusted for socioeconomic and clinical factors were constructed to determine associations between sex and binary dependent variables including referrals to and visits with general cardiology and electrophysiology (EP) and AFCA utilization. RESULTS: Of 6850 patients analyzed, 2693 were women, and 4157 were men. No significant differences were found in odds of referral to (aOR, 1.13 [0.92-1.40], P = 0.25) or visits with (aOR, 1.05 [0.86-1.29], P = 0.62) general cardiologists between women and men. Women were found to be less likely to visit with EP than men (aOR, 0.88 [0.79-0.99], P = 0.03). In analyses of referral patterns after release of the 2014 AHA/ACC/HRS guidelines, women were found to be referred to (aOR, 0.78 [0.63-0.95], P = 0.01) and visit with (aOR, 0.86 [0.75-0.99], P = 0.03) EP less frequently than men. Finally, no significant difference was found in likelihood to undergo AFCA between women and men (aOR, 1.05 [0.83-1.33], P = 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: This study uncovered significant differences in rates of referral to and visits with EP between women and men. Encouraging equitable referral to specialists and access to AFCA is essential in ensuring appropriate care for all patients.

Safety and feasibility of intravenous sotalol loading for the prevention of ventricular arrhythmias.

BACKGROUND: The use of intravenous (IV) sotalol loading following recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a 1-day loading protocol has reduced the obligatory 3-day hospital stay for sotalol initiation when given orally. Several studies have recently demonstrated the safety and feasibility of IV loading for patients with atrial arrhythmias. However, there is a paucity of data on the feasibility and safety of IV sotalol loading for patients with ventricular arrhythmias. This study aims to assess the safety, feasibility, and length of stay (LOS) outcomes of IV sotalol loading for the prevention of ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing IV sotalol loading and oral sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias, or IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias between August 2021 and December 2023 at Northwestern University. Baseline characteristics, success of sotalol initiation/loading, changes in heart rate (HR) and QT/QTc, safety, and LOS were compared between patients undergoing sotalol loading/initiation for ventricular arrhythmias (IV vs. PO) and between patients undergoing IV sotalol loading for ventricular arrhythmias vs. for atrial arrhythmias. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients underwent sotalol loading/initiation for ventricular arrhythmias (N = 15 IV and N = 13 PO) and 41 patients underwent IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias. Baseline characteristics of congestive heart failure history and left ventricular ejection fraction were worse in the ventricular arrhythmias group. There was no significant difference in the successful completion of IV sotalol loading for ventricular arrhythmias compared to oral sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias or IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias (86.7% vs. 92.3% vs. 90.2%, p = 0.88). There was a significant increase in ΔQTc following IV sotalol infusion for ventricular arrhythmias compared to following PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias (46.4 ± 29.2 ms vs. 8.9 ± 32.6 ms, p = 0.004) and following IV sotalol infusion for atrial arrhythmias (46.4 ± 29.2 ms vs. 24.0 ± 25.1 ms, p = 0.018). ΔHR following IV sotalol infusion for ventricular arrhythmias was similar to ΔHR following PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias and ΔHR following IV sotalol infusion for atrial arrhythmias (- 7.5 ± 8.7 bpm vs. - 8.5 ± 13.9 bpm vs. - 8.3 ± 13.2 bpm, p = 0.87). There were no significant differences in discontinuation for QTc prolongation (6.7% vs. 1.7% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.64) and bradycardia (13.3% vs. 7.7% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.88) between IV sotalol loading for ventricular arrhythmias, PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias, and IV sotalol loading for atrial arrhythmias. There were no instances of hypotension, life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, or death. Length of stay was significantly shorter for IV sotalol loading compared to PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias (1.1 ± 0.36 days vs. 4.2 ± 1.0 days, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: IV sotalol loading appears feasible and safe for use in ventricular arrhythmias and results in a decreased length of stay. Despite increased comorbidities and greater increase in QTc interval following IV sotalol infusion in the ventricular arrhythmias group, there were no significant differences in successful completion of loading or adverse outcomes when compared to PO sotalol initiation for ventricular arrhythmias and IV loading for atrial arrhythmias.