ABSTRACT
Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) is a life-threatening drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction that is most closely associated with antiepileptics and antibiotics. While cases of DRESS are rare, here we present a case of DRESS in an adult male following administration of rosuvastatin who presented with fevers, generalized rash, and facial fullness. Vitals on presentation were temperature 102oF, pulse 95/min, blood pressure 95/47 mmHg, and respiratory rate of 14/min. His physical examination revealed scleral icterus, generalized blanching maculopapular rash, facial fullness, and right upper quadrant tenderness. Laboratory investigations found hemoglobin 10 gm/dl, white blood cell count 16.0 K/uL, peripheral eosinophil count 1,700 K/uL, alkaline phosphatase 2,501 U/L, aspartate transaminase 620 U/L, alanine transaminase 680 U/L, total bilirubin 13.2 mg/dl with a direct component of 9 mg/dl, blood urea nitrogen 66 mg/dl, creatinine 5.20 mg/dl, glomerular filtration rate 8 ml/min, and immunoglobulin E level 623 IU/mL. Serology for viral hepatitis, Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, and human herpesvirus 6 was negative. Computed tomographic scan of chest, abdomen, and pelvis showed generalized lymphadenopathy. Over the next week, the patient deteriorated clinically with worsening transaminitis and oliguric acute renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy. As per the European Registry of Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reaction Criteria (RegiSCAR), the probability of rosuvastatin-induced DRESS syndrome was scored as "definite." He was treated with systemic and topical glucocorticoids leading to a gradual improvement in his symptoms. Skin biopsy was suggestive of DRESS syndrome as well. Since DRESS carries such a significant risk of mortality between 10% and 20%, DRESS must be recognized and treated as soon as symptoms present. Clinicians should also be aware that statins, one of the most commonly prescribed drugs, are also a potential cause DRESS.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy (C-XRT) frequently present with aortic stenosis (AS) as the first manifestation of radiation-induced heart disease. They are considered high-risk for surgical valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is as an attractive option for this patient population but the outcomes are not well established in major clinical trials. The authors performed a systemic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies for the outcomes after TAVR in cancer survivors with prior C-XRT. METHODS: Online databases were searched from inception to April 2020 for studies evaluating the outcomes of TAVR in patients with and without C-XRT. We analyzed the pooled estimates (with their 95% confidence intervals) of the odds ratio (OR) for the all-cause mortality at 30-day and 1-year follow-ups, 4-point safety outcomes (stroke, major bleed, access-related vascular complications and need for a pacemaker), a 2-point efficacy outcome (mean aortic valve gradient and left ventricular ejection fraction) and worsening of congestive heart failure (CHF). Four studies were included following 2054 patients with and without prior C-XRT exposure (164 patients and 1890 patients respectively). RESULTS: The C-XRT group had similar 30-day mortality compared to the control group (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.58, p = 0.48). The 1-year mortality was higher in the C-XRT group (OR 1.97, CI 1.15 to 3.39, p = 0.01). Apart from higher congestive heart failure (CHF) exacerbation in the C-XRT group (OR 2.03, CI 1.36 to 3.04, p = 0.0006), TAVR resulted in similar safety and efficacy outcomes in both groups. CONCLUSION: TAVR in the C-XRT group has similar 30-day mortality, safety, and efficacy outcomes compared to the control group; however, they have higher 1-year mortality and CHF exacerbation. Including an oncologist to the cardiology team who considers cancer stage in the decision-making process and applying additional preoperative scores such as frailty indices may refine the risk assessment for these patients. The quality of analyzed data is modest, warranting randomized trials to assess the true benefits of TAVR in these patients.
ABSTRACT
The epithet of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) is volume overload. ADHF is associated with a rising number of hospital admission for volume overload. Medication non-compliance, excessive salt intake, comorbidities, and/or disease progression can attribute to volume overload. Heart failure (HF) therapy has innovated during the past few decades, but diuretics have been the mainstay of treatment. Diuretics are vital even though these drugs stimulate the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and lead to adaptive responses like diuretic resistance, neurohormonal activation, and worsening renal function that may be inimical. There has been a thriving interest in cutting-edge strategies to manage volume overload in ADHF. The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines advocate pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to treat volume overload in ADHF patients. Ultrafiltration (UF) is, therefore, an emerging stand-in therapy of interest for treating volume overload in ADHF patients. This review article epitomizes available clinical data on the use of diuretics and UF in ADHF patients and identifies challenges for each approach.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the following: (1) the intramethod variability of impedance cardiography (ICG) cardiac output (CO) measurements via the latest generation monitor and thermodilution CO measurements (CO-TDs); (2) the intermethod comparison of ICG CO and CO-TD; and (3) comparisons of the intergeneration ICG CO equation to CO-TD, using the latest ICG CO equation, the ZMARC (CO-ICG), and the predecessor equations for measuring the ICG CO of Kubicek (CO-K), Sramek (CO-S), and Sramek-Bernstein (CO-SB). DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: A cardiovascular-thoracic surgery ICU in a community university-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: Post-coronary artery bypass graft patients (n = 53) in whom 210 pairs of CO measurements were made. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The CO-ICG was determined simultaneously while the nurse was performing the CO-TD. Variability within the monitoring method was better for CO-ICG compared to CO-TD (6.3% vs 24.7%, respectively). The correlation, bias, and precision of the CO-ICG was good compared to CO-TD (r(2) = 0.658; r = 0.811; bias, -0.17 L/min; precision, 1.09 L/min; CO-ICG = 1.00 x CO-TD - 0.17; p < 0.001). A steady improvement in agreement of the previous ICG methodologies compared to CO-TD was observed as follows: (1) CO-K: r(2) = 0.309; r = 0.556; bias, -1.71 L/min; precision, 1.81 L/min; CO-K = 0.78 x CO-TD - 0.45; p < 0.001; (2) CO-S: r(2) = 0.361; r = 0.601; bias, -1.46 L/min; precision, 1.63 L/min; CO-S = 0.80 x CO-TD - 0.36; p < 0.001; and (3) CO-SB: r(2) = 0.469; r = 0.685; bias, -0.77 L/min; precision, 1.69 L/min; CO-SB = 1.03 x CO-TD - 0.95; p < 0.001. The CO-ICG demonstrated the closest agreement to CO-TD. CONCLUSION: The latest ICG technology for determining CO (CO-ICG) is less variable and more reproducible in an intrapatient sense than is CO-TD, it is equivalent to the average accepted CO-TD in post-coronary artery bypass graft patients, and showed marked improvement in agreement with CO-TD compared to measurements made using previous generation ICG CO equations.