Patent Foramen Ovale Closure in the Setting of Cryptogenic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis of Five Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure after cryptogenic stroke has been a topic of debate for decades. Recently, 3 randomized controlled trials of PFO closure in patients with cryptogenic stroke demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of recurrent stroke compared with standard medical therapy alone. This meta-analysis was performed to clarify the efficacy of PFO closure for future stroke prevention in this population. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken. Published pooled data from 5 large randomized clinical trials (CLOSE, RESPECT, Gore REDUCE, CLOSURE I, and PC) were combined and then subsequently analyzed. Enrolled patients with cryptogenic stroke were assigned to receive standard medical care or to undergo endovascular PFO closure, with a primary outcome of reduction in stroke recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included rates of transient ischemic attack (TIA), composite outcome of stroke, TIA, and death from all causes, and rates of atrial fibrillation events. RESULTS: We analyzed data for 3412 patients. Transcatheter PFO closure resulted in a statistically significant reduced rate of recurrent stroke, compared with medication alone. Patients undergoing closure were 58% less likely to have another stroke. The number needed to treat with PFO closure to reduce recurrent stroke for 1 patient was 40. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular PFO closure was associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke in patients with a prior cryptogenic cerebral infarct. Although the absolute stroke reduction was small, these findings are clinically significant, given the young age of this patient population and the patients' lifetime risk of recurrent stroke.

CardioMEMS monitoring device migration: A rare complication.

We present a rare case of CardioMEMS device migration six years post-implantation. Much is still being learned about endothelization of pulmonary vasculature and this case highlights the importance of device surveillance and device-related complications.

Lead Cap Use in Interventional Cardiology: Time to Protect Our Head in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory?

Background: Radiation exposure is an occupational hazard for interventional cardiologists and cardiac catheterisation laboratory staff that can manifest with serious long-term health consequences. Personal protective equipment, including lead jackets and glasses, is common, but the use of radiation protective lead caps is inconsistent. Methods: A systematic review qualitative assessment of five observational studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines protocol was performed. Results: It was concluded that lead caps significantly reduce radiation exposure to the head, even when a ceiling-mounted lead shield was present. Conclusion: Although newer protective systems are being studied and introduced, tools, such as lead caps, need to be strongly considered and employed in the catheterisation laboratory as mainstay personal protective equipment.

In-Hospital Outcomes of COVID-19 Associated Myocarditis (from a Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database Study).

The prevalence of COVID-19 infection-related myocarditis, its in-hospital cardiovascular outcomes, and its impact on hospital cost and stay at national level are not well studied in the literature. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database from 2020 was queried to identify patients with COVID-19 and myocarditis versus those without myocarditis. Cardiovascular outcomes and resource utilization were studied among cohorts with COVID-19, with and without myocarditis, using descriptive statistics, multivariate regression matching, and propensity score matching using STATA version 17. Of 1,678,995 patients, 3,565 (0.21%) had COVID-19 with myocarditis, and 1,675,355 (99.78%) had COVID-19 without myocarditis. On multivariate regression analysis, we found higher odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.9) in patients with myocarditis than in those without myocarditis, in addition to higher odds of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (aOR 3.54, 95% CI 2.8 to 4.4), acute kidney injury (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.9), heart failure (aOR 2.77, 95% CI 2.3 to 3.4), cardiogenic shock (aOR 10.2, 95% CI 7.9 to 13), myocardial infarction (aOR 5.74, 95% CI 4.5 to 7.3), and use of mechanical circulatory support (aOR 2.81, 95% CI 1.6 to 4.9). The propensity-matched cohort also favored similar outcomes. In conclusion, patients with COVID-19 and myocarditis had worse clinical outcomes, having a higher rate of in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events with longer length of hospital stay, and higher hospitalization costs. Large prospective trials are necessary to validate these findings with diagnostic measures, including biopsy and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the extent of myocardial involvement.

Epidemiology of Shock in Contemporary Cardiac Intensive Care Units.

Background Clinical investigations of shock in cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have primarily focused on acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Few studies have evaluated the full spectrum of shock in contemporary CICUs. Methods and Results The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of advanced CICUs in North America. Anytime between September 2017 and September 2018, each center (n=16) contributed a 2-month snap-shot of all consecutive medical admissions to the CICU. Data were submitted to the central coordinating center (TIMI Study Group, Boston, MA). Shock was defined as sustained systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg with end-organ dysfunction ascribed to the hypotension. Shock type was classified by site investigators as cardiogenic, distributive, hypovolemic, or mixed. Among 3049 CICU admissions, 677 (22%) met clinical criteria for shock. Shock type was varied, with 66% assessed as cardiogenic shock (CS), 7% as distributive, 3% as hypovolemic, 20% as mixed, and 4% as unknown. Among patients with CS (n=450), 30% had AMICS, 18% had ischemic cardiomyopathy without AMI, 28% had nonischemic cardiomyopathy, and 17% had a cardiac cause other than primary myocardial dysfunction. Patients with mixed shock had cardiovascular comorbidities similar to patients with CS. The median CICU stay was 4.0 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2.5-8.1 days) for AMICS, 4.3 days (IQR, 2.1-8.5 days) for CS not related to AMI, and 5.8 days (IQR, 2.9-10.0 days) for mixed shock versus 1.9 days (IQR, 1.0-3.6) for patients without shock ( P<0.01 for each). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were higher in patients with mixed shock (10; IQR, 6-13) versus AMICS (8; IQR, 5-11) or CS without AMI (7; IQR, 5-11; each P<0.01). In-hospital mortality rates were 36% (95% CI, 28%-45%), 31% (95% CI, 26%-36%), and 39% (95% CI, 31%-48%) in AMICS, CS without AMI, and mixed shock, respectively. Conclusions The epidemiology of shock in contemporary advanced CICUs is varied, and AMICS now represents less than one-third of all CS. Despite advanced therapies, mortality in CS and mixed shock remains high. Investigation of management strategies and new therapies to treat shock in the CICU should take this epidemiology into account.