Outcomes of Cardiac Arrest and Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Device; an Insight From a National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of patients with implanted left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation experiencing a cardiac arrest (CA) are not well reported. We aimed at defining the in-hospital outcomes of patients with implanted LVAD experiencing a CA. METHODS: The national inpatient sample (NIS) was queried using ICD9/ICD10 codes for patients older than 18 years with implanted LVAD and CA between 2010-2018. We excluded patients with orthotropic heart transplantation, biventricular assist device (BiVAD) implantation and do not resuscitate (DNR) status. RESULTS: A total of 93,153 hospitalisations between 2010 and 2018 with implanted LVAD were identified. Only 578 of these hospitalisations had experienced CA and of those, 173 (33%) hospitalisations underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The mean age of hospitalisations that experienced a CA was 60.61±14.85 for non-survivors and 56.23±17.33 for survivors (p=0.14). The in-hospital mortality was 60.8% in hospitalisations with CA and 74.33% in hospitalisations in whom CPR was performed. In an analysis comparing survivors with non-survivors, non-survivors had more diabetes mellitus (DM) (p=0.01), and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) (p=0.04). Age, female sex, peripheral vascular disease and history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) were independently associated with increased mortality in our cohort. Also, ventricular tachycardia (VT) and CPR were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. During the study period, there was a significantly decreasing trend in performing CPR in LVAD hospitalisations with CA. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, age, female sex, peripheral vascular disease, history of CABG, VT and CPR were independently associated with in-hospital mortality in LVAD hospitalisations who experienced CA.

Echocardiography, lung ultrasound, and cardiac magnetic resonance findings in COVID-19: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The manifestations of COVID-19 as outlined by imaging modalities such as echocardiography, lung ultrasound (LUS), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are not fully described. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the current literature and included studies that described cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 using echocardiography, CMR, and pulmonary manifestations using LUS. We queried PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for relevant articles. Original studies and case series were included. RESULTS: This review describes the most common abnormalities encountered on echocardiography, LUS, and CMR in patients infected with COVID-19.

Meta-analysis of Safety and Efficacy of Anticoagulation versus no Anticoagulation in Octogenarians and Nonagenarians with Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: The role of anticoagulation in octogenarians and nonagenarians with atrial fibrillation (AF) is controversial due to the lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), owing to the under representation of these patients in clinical trials. AIM: In the present meta-analysis we aim at comparing the clinical benefits and risk of anticoagulation (AC) with no AC in octogenarians and nonagenarians. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/Ovid, and Web of Science databases from the inception to October, 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: studies comparing AC with no AC in patients aged 80 or more for AF and reported thromboembolic events (TE) and bleeding outcomes. We used Mantel-Haenszel method with a Paule-Mandel estimator of Tau2 with Hartung Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment to estimate risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Outlier analysis was used to adjust for statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 10 observation studies and 1 RCT were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in the risk of TE with AC in octogenarians and nonagenarians compared with no AC, before [RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.62-1.23, I2: 71%, GRADE confidence "very low"] and after [RR: 0.83, 95% CI 0.66-1.04, I2: 55.5%] adjusting for statistical heterogeneity among studies. In the unadjusted analysis, no difference in the risk of bleeding events was observed between both groups [RR: 1.05, 95% CI 0.62-1.77, I2: 86%, GRADE confidence "very low"]. After adjusting for heterogeneity, AC was associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared with those not receiving AC [RR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.44-1.71, I2: 0%]. AC in octogenarians was not associated with a net clinical benefit compared with no AC. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis did not demonstrate any difference in the risk TE in octogenarians and nonagenarians with AF on AC vs. no AC, in both the adjusted and unadjusted analyses. Also, the risk of bleeding events in the unadjusted analysis was similar between both groups. The adjusted analysis showed an increased risk of bleeding in the AC group compared with no AC group. More data is needed to establish safety and efficacy of AC in this vulnerable patient population. The results of this analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the observational nature of most studies included, and the only RCT reported lower rates of TE and similar risk of bleeding.