A comparison of endovascular repair to medical management for acute vs subacute uncomplicated type B aortic dissections.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a viable option of treatment for uncomplicated type B aortic dissection (UTBAD) due to the potential for inducing favorable aortic remodeling. The aim of this study is to compare outcomes of UTBAD treated medically or with TEVAR in either the acute (1 to 14 days) or subacute period (2 weeks to 3 months). METHODS: Patients with UTBAD between 2007 and 2019 were identified using the TriNetX Network. The cohort was stratified by treatment type (medical management; TEVAR during the acute period; TEVAR during the subacute period). Outcomes including mortality, endovascular reintervention, and rupture were analyzed after propensity matching. RESULTS: Among 20,376 patients with UTBAD, 18,840 were medically managed (92.5%), 1099 patients were in the acute TEVAR group (5.4%), and 437 patients were in the subacute TEVAR group (2.1%). The acute TEVAR group had higher rates of 30-day and 3-year rupture (4.1% vs 1.5%; P < .001; 9.9% vs 3.6%; P < .001) and 3-year endovascular reintervention (7.6% vs 1.6%; P < .001), similar 30-day mortality (4.4% vs 2.9%; P < .068), and lower 3-year survival compared with medical management (86.6% vs 83.3%; P = .041). The subacute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1), 3-year survival (87.0% vs 88.8%; P = .377) and 30-day and 3-year rupture (2.3% vs 2.3%; P = 1; 4.6% vs 3.4%; P = .388), with significantly higher rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 7.8%; P = .019) compared with medical management. The acute TEVAR group had similar rates of 30-day mortality (4.2% vs 2.5%; P = .171), rupture (3.0% vs 2.5%; P = .666), significantly higher rates of 3-year rupture (8.7% vs 3.5%; P = .002), and similar rates of 3-year endovascular reintervention (12.6% vs 10.6%; P = .380) compared with the subacute TEVAR group. There was significantly higher 3-year survival (88.5% vs 84.0%; P = .039) in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results found lower 3-year survival in the acute TEVAR group compared with the medical management group. There was no 3-year survival benefit found in patients with UTBAD who underwent subacute TEVAR compared with medical management. This suggests the need for further studies looking at the necessity for TEVAR when compared with medical management for UTBAD as it is non-inferior to medical management. Higher rates of 3-year survival and lower rates of 3-year rupture in the subacute TEVAR group compared with the acute TEVAR group suggest superiority of subacute TEVAR. Further investigations are needed to determine the long-term benefit and optimal timing of TEVAR for acute UTBAD.

Outcomes of acute limb ischemia in COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: The inflammatory cascade caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection may result in arterial thrombosis and acute limb ischemia (ALI) with devastating consequences. The aims of this study were to compare outcomes of ALI in the lower extremities in patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to determine if ALI development in the context of COVID-19 portends a worse prognosis compared with COVID-19 without ALI. METHODS: Queries were built on TriNetX, a federated network of health care organizations across the United States that provides de-identified patient data. International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision diagnostic codes were used to identify patients with acute limb ischemia of the lower extremities and COVID-19. The study timeframe was defined as January 20, 2020 to May 20, 2021. Statistical analyses, including propensity-score matching, were done through TriNetX's internal software. Outcomes looked at are rates of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, major adverse limb events, re-intervention, respiratory failure, sepsis, mental health complications, and acute renal failure. Baseline cohort characteristics were also collected. RESULTS: Patients with ALI with COVID-19 (ALI C19+; n = 526) were significantly less likely than patients with ALI without COVID-19 (ALI; n = 14,131) to have baseline comorbidities, including nicotine dependence (18% vs 33%; P < .0001). In contrast, ALI C19+ patients had significantly more comorbidities than hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without ALI (n = 275,903), including nicotine dependence (18% vs 10%; P < .0001). After propensity matching was performed, ALI C19+ patients had significantly higher rates of mortality (24.9% vs 9.2%; P < .0001), major adverse limb events (5.8% vs 2.9%; P = .0223), and acute renal failure (22.2% vs 14.9%; P = .0025) than patients with ALI. Compared with hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without ALI, ALI C19+ patients had higher propensity-matched rates of respiratory failure and being placed on assisted ventilation (32.9% vs 27%; P = .0369), sepsis (16.9% vs 12.2%; P = .0288), acute renal failure (22.1% vs 14.6%; P = .0019), and mortality (24.7% vs 14.4%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who developed ALI following COVID-19 present with significantly different demographics and comorbidities from those who develop ALI without COVID-19. After controlling for these variables, higher rates of major adverse limb events, acute renal failure, and mortality in patients with ALI with COVID-19 suggest that not only may COVID-19 precipitate ALI, but it may also exacerbate ALI sequelae. Furthermore, development of ALI in COVID-19 portends worse prognosis compared with patients with COVID-19 without ALI.

Warfarin versus direct oral anticoagulants for patients needing distal deep vein thrombosis treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Great interest exists in standardizing the anticoagulant choice for patients requiring treatment of distal deep vein thrombosis (DDVT). In the present multicenter, retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the outcomes of patients with DDVT who had been treated with warfarin vs direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs; ie, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, dabigatran). METHODS: Queries were built for the TriNetX database (TriNetX LLC, Cambridge, Mass), a federated network of healthcare organizations across the United States that provides de-identified patient data through aggregated counts and statistical summaries. International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, diagnostic codes were used to identify eligible patients. Data from January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2020 were reviewed. Statistical analyses, including propensity matching, were performed using TriNetX's internal software. The inclusion criterion was treatment with either warfarin or a DOAC started within the first 24 hours of diagnosis of an isolated thrombosis of the following veins: anterior tibial, posterior tibial, peroneal, or calf muscular veins. The exclusion criteria were a history of an adverse reaction to anticoagulant agents, SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection, thrombophilia, mechanical heart valve, chronic proximal DVT (PDVT) and/or DDVT, and 6-month history of the following: acute PDVT, pulmonary embolism (PE), or anticoagulant usage. The outcomes measured included the incidence of mortality, PE, PDVT, stroke, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding within 6 months after initiating anticoagulation therapy. RESULTS: In a cohort of 6509 patients, 1570 were treated with warfarin and 4939 were treated with a DOAC drug. After propensity matching for age, sex, ethnicity, and comorbidities, the DOAC cohort had a significantly lower incidence of PE (1.795% vs 3.590%; P = .0020) and major bleeding (7.949% vs 10.513%; P = .0134). Differences in the incidence of mortality, PDVT, myocardial infarction, and stroke were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Before the present study, no strong evidence was available to suggest an optimal treatment modality for DDVT requiring anticoagulation therapy. The data from the present study suggest that patients receiving DOACs for the treatment of DDVT will have significantly lower rates of progression to PE and a lower incidence of major bleeding compared with patients receiving warfarin. This suggests that DOACs are superior to warfarin for treatment of DDVT.

Clinical characteristics of the first and second COVID-19 waves in the Bronx, New York: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical patient data comparing the first and second waves of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United States and the effects of a COVID-19 resurgence on different age, racial and ethnic groups. We compared the first and second COVID-19 waves in the Bronx, New York, among a racially and ethnically diverse population. METHODS: Patients in this retrospective cohort study were included if they had a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by a real-time PCR test of a nasopharyngeal swab specimen detected between March 11, 2020, and January 21, 2021. Main outcome measures were critical care, in-hospital acquired disease and death. Patient demographics, comorbidities, vitals, and laboratory values were also collected. FINDINGS: A total of 122,983 individuals were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection, of which 12,659 tested positive. The second wave was characterized by a younger demographic, fewer comorbidities, less extreme laboratory values at presentation, and lower risk of adverse outcomes, including in-hospital mortality (adj. OR = 0·23, 99·5% CI = 0·17 to 0·30), hospitalization (adj. OR = 0·65, 99·5% CI = 0·58 to 0·74), invasive mechanical ventilation (adj. OR = 0·70, 99·5% CI = 0·56 to 0·89), acute kidney injury (adj. OR = 0·62, 99·5% CI = 0·54 to 0·71), and length of stay (adj. OR = 0·71, 99·5% CI = 0·60 to 0·85), with Black and Hispanic patients demonstrating most improvement in clinical outcomes. INTERPRETATION: The second COVID-19 wave in the Bronx exhibits improved clinical outcomes compared to the first wave across all age, racial, and ethnic groups, with minority groups showing more improvement, which is encouraging news in the battle against health disparities.