RESUMO
Aims: Cardiac amyloidosis (CA) is common in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Cardiac amyloidosis has poor outcomes, and its assessment in all TAVR patients is costly and challenging. Electrocardiogram (ECG) artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that screen for CA may be useful to identify at-risk patients. Methods and results: In this retrospective analysis of our institutional National Cardiovascular Disease Registry (NCDR)-TAVR database, patients undergoing TAVR between January 2012 and December 2018 were included. Pre-TAVR CA probability was analysed by an ECG AI predictive model, with >50% risk defined as high probability for CA. Univariable and propensity score covariate adjustment analyses using Cox regression were performed to compare clinical outcomes between patients with high CA probability vs. those with low probability at 1-year follow-up after TAVR. Of 1426 patients who underwent TAVR (mean age 81.0 ± 8.5 years, 57.6% male), 349 (24.4%) had high CA probability on pre-procedure ECG. Only 17 (1.2%) had a clinical diagnosis of CA. After multivariable adjustment, high probability of CA by ECG AI algorithm was significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.96, P = 0.046] and higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (transient ischaemic attack (TIA)/stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalizations] (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01-1.82, P = 0.041), driven primarily by heart failure hospitalizations (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.13-2.20, P = 0.008) at 1-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in TIA/stroke or myocardial infarction. Conclusion: Artificial intelligence applied to pre-TAVR ECGs identifies a subgroup at higher risk of clinical events. These targeted patients may benefit from further diagnostic evaluation for CA.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). RESULTS: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.