Cardiac Contractility Modulation and Baroreflex Activation Therapy in Heart Failure Patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite advances in medical therapy, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is still a leading cause of mortality, hospitalizations, and healthcare costs. In this review, we describe two novel, implantable devices for the treatment of patients with HFrEF, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM), and baroreflex activation therapy (BAT), and summarize literature regarding these devices from the last 5 years. RECENT FINDINGS: CCM improves quality of life and functional capacity as assessed by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) score, 6-min hall walk test (6MHWT) distance, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, peak oxygen consumption (pVO2), heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, and mortality. BAT improves MLHFQ, 6-min walk test distance, NYHA functional class, and HF hospitalizations. Both devices have been shown to be safe. CCM and BAT have been shown to be safe and effective treatment modalities for HFrEF. CCM has been approved for use in Europe and has been implanted in thousands of patients. BAT has also been approved in Europe and continues to show promise in treating patients with HFrEF who fail optimal medical therapy (OMT). At present, both therapies are considered investigational in the USA.

ERCP-directed radiofrequency ablation and photodynamic therapy are associated with comparable survival in the treatment of unresectable cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a malignancy with a poor 5-year survival rate (5%-10%). ERCP-directed radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or photodynamic therapy (PDT) can be performed as palliative therapy for unresectable CCA. ERCP with PDT is associated with improved survival compared with stent placement alone. However, ERCP-directed RFA has not been directly compared with PDT in patients with CCA. OBJECTIVE: To compare overall survival in patients with unresectable CCA who underwent palliative ERCP-directed RFA versus PDT. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care academic medical center. PATIENTS: Forty-eight patients with unresectable CCA who underwent ERCP-directed ablative therapy for palliation of unresectable CCA. INTERVENTIONS: ERCP-directed RFA or PDT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Overall survival by Kaplan-Meier analysis after initial treatment with either RFA or PDT. RESULTS: Patients who underwent RFA (n = 16) demonstrated an overall survival similar to that of those who underwent PDT (n = 32), with a median survival of 9.6 versus 7.5 months, respectively (P = .799). Patient age (P = .45), sex (P = .52), and lead time (P = .59) from presentation to initial RFA or PDT had no significant association with survival. The presence of distant metastasis was inversely associated with survival (hazard ratio 3.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-9.77; P = .014). Patients who underwent RFA (compared with PDT) had a lower mean number of plastic stents placed per month (0.45 vs 1.10, P = .001) but also had more episodes of stent occlusion (0.06 vs 0.02, P = .008) and cholangitis (0.13 vs 0.05, P = .008) per month. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, single-center design. CONCLUSIONS: Survival after ERCP-directed RFA and PDT was not statistically different in patients with unresectable CCA. A randomized, controlled trial is warranted to validate these preliminary results.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal neoplasia is easily learned, efficacious, and safe.

BACKGROUND: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) without submucosal injection is a novel endoscopic procedure. It is not known if UEMR can be easily taught and learned, and the efficacy and safety of UEMR has not been demonstrated at multiple medical centers. Our aims were to demonstrate that (1) UEMR is a technique that can be easily learned by an endoscopist trained in traditional EMR, (2) endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may not be required before UEMR, and (3) UEMR is an efficacious and safe method for resection of large or flat neoplastic colorectal lesions. METHODS: An experienced interventional endoscopist began performing UEMR after observing UEMR procedures. Colorectal UEMR was performed using a pediatric colonoscope with a cap, a waterjet, and a 'duck-bill' snare using blended current. Submucosal injection was not used. Patient data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: A total of 21 patients (17 men, mean age 64.9 years, range 51-83) referred for polypectomy of large colorectal lesions underwent UEMR. A total of 43 colorectal lesions with a mean size of 20 mm (range 8-50) were resected by UEMR. Lesions were found in the right colon (N = 16), transverse colon (N = 5), left colon (N = 19), and rectum (N = 3). Pathology demonstrated tubular adenoma (N = 29), tubulovillous adenoma (N = 5), high-grade dysplasia (N = 3), serrated sessile adenoma without dysplasia (N = 3), and non-neoplastic tissue (N = 3). EUS was used in only two cases of rectal neoplasia (4.7 %). Of the UEMRs, 97.7 % were successful with complete resection of colorectal polyps. The only adverse event was one case (2.3 %) of delayed post-UEMR bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR was easily learned by an endoscopist already skilled in conventional EMR. EUS may not be required prior to most UEMR procedures. UEMR appears to be an efficacious and safe alternative to traditional EMR or ESD for large or flat colorectal neoplasms.

Management of COVID-19 in a durable left ventricular assist device recipient: A continuity of care perspective.

COVID-19 is impacting the cardiovascular community both here in the United States and globally. The rapidly emerging cardiac complications have heightened implications for those with underlying cardiovascular disease. We describe an early case of COVID-19 in a left ventricular assist device recipient in the United States. We discuss our clinical management during the initial admission, outpatient management, and a unique complication of this disease over a 40-day disease course.