RESUMEN
The foramen ovale serves as an opening between the right and left atria at the site of the fossa ovalis in the fetus during uterine life. During fetal life, it makes it possible for venous blood from the maternal placenta with oxygen and nutrients to bypass the immature fetal lung and get transported to the left side of the heart and onto the systemic circulation. This hole from the right to the left atrium is usually occluded at the time of birth or shortly after birth, due to increased pressures in the left-sided cardiac cavities associated with normal breathing during delivery or shortly afterwards. If the foramen ovale remains open and fails to fuse beyond the first year of life, it is known as a patent foramen ovale (PFO). PFO occurs when, during fetal life, the septum primum and secundum, which develop and overlap normally, fail to fuse at birth. This results in the persistence of communication between the right and left atria. Paradoxical embolism from the right to the left side of the heart can occur through a PFO, causing a cryptogenic stroke or embolic stroke of an undetermined source in an otherwise healthy adult. There was a debate on the long-term benefits of closure. However, data from the randomized evaluation of the recurrent stroke comparing PFO closure to established current standard of care treatment (RESPECT) trial and two randomized trials (patent foramen ovale closure or anticoagulants versus antiplatelet therapy to prevent stroke recurrence (CLOSE) and reduction by dutasteride of prostate cancer events (REDUCE)) have clarified that there is a benefit to closure. In this case report, we describe a patient who presented with cryptogenic stroke, the investigations, imaging modalities for diagnosis of PFO, and procedure for closure. We also describe long-term outcomes and management following closure.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is a clinical syndrome that is characterized by a drop in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) due to chronic high-burden right ventricular (RV) pacing. It has been postulated that leadless pacemakers (LPs) cause decreased risk of PICM compared to transvenous pacemakers (TVPs), but the exact risk reduction is unknown. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of adults who received an LP or TVP between January 1, 2014, and April 1, 2022, and had echocardiograms before and after the pacemaker implant. This study's outcomes were the RV pacing percentage, change in EF, the need for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade, and follow-up duration. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test calculated the change in EF. RV time, defined as the duration from pacemaker placement to the follow-up echocardiogram in months multiplied by the RV pacing percentage, served as a surrogate for how long the RV was paced. RESULTS: A total of 614 patients were screened, and 198 patients were included in the study, where 72 received LP and 126 received TVP. The median follow-up was 480 days. The average of the reported RV percentage pacing was 63.43% for LP and 71.30% for TVP (p=0.14). The incidence of PICM and CRT upgrade was 44% and 9.7% in the LP group and 37% and 9.5% in the TVP group (p=0.3 and p>0.9), respectively. After accounting for age, sex, LP versus TVP, atrioventricular nodal ablation, RV pacing percentage, and follow-up duration, univariate analysis showed that RV time was significantly different between the two types of pacemakers (13.54 ± 14.21 months (LP) versus 9.26 ± 13.95 months (TVP), p=0.009). The difference in RV time between patients who underwent CRT upgrade and those who did not was statistically insignificant (12.11 ± 14.47 months (no CRT) versus 9.19 ± 12.00 months (CRT), p=0.5). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that the incidence of PICM was high in both groups (44% (LP) versus 37% (TVP)), despite significantly more RV time in patients with LP. There was no difference in CRT upgrade between LP and TVP.
RESUMEN
Unprecedented advances in the treatment of cancer have occurred through the use of immunotherapy, with several agents currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of widespread metastatic disease across cancer types. Immune checkpoint blockade represents a particularly promising class of agents that block inhibitory molecules on the surface of T cells, resulting in their activation and propagation of an immune response. Treatment with these agents may re-invigorate anti-tumor immunity, resulting in therapeutic responses, and use of these agents currently is being studied in the adjuvant setting. Additionally, a strong rationale exists for their use in the neoadjuvant setting for high-risk resectable disease (e.g., regional nodal disease in the case of melanoma). This rationale is based on the relatively high risk of relapse for these patients, as well as on scientific evidence suggesting that long-term immunologic memory and tumor control may be superior in the setting of treatment for an intact tumor (i.e., neoadjuvant therapy) as opposed to treatment in the setting of micrometastatic disease (e.g., adjuvant treatment). The potential advantages of this approach and the current landscape for neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is discussed in this report, as well as caveats that should be considered by clinicians contemplating this strategy.