Upper GI tract findings in patients with heartburn in whom proton pump inhibitor treatment failed versus those not receiving antireflux treatment.

BACKGROUND: Failure of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment in patients with heartburn is very common. Because endoscopy is easily accessible, it is commonly used as the first evaluative tool in these patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare GERD-related endoscopic and histologic findings in patients with heartburn in whom once-daily PPI therapy failed versus those not receiving antireflux treatment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A Veterans Affairs hospital. PATIENTS: Heartburn patients from the GI outpatient clinic. INTERVENTION: Recording of endoscopic results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Endoscopic findings and association between PPI treatment failure and esophageal mucosal injury by using logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 105 subjects (mean age 54.7 +/- 15.7 years; 71 men, 34 women) were enrolled in the PPI treatment failure group and 91 (mean age 53.4 +/- 15.8 years; 68 men, 23 women) were enrolled in the no-treatment group (P = not significant). Anatomic findings during upper endoscopy were significantly more common in the no-treatment group compared with the PPI treatment failure group (55.2% vs 40.7%, respectively; P = .04). GERD-related findings were significantly more common in the no-treatment group compared with the PPI treatment failure group (erosive esophagitis: 30.8% vs 6.7%, respectively; P < .05). Eosinophilic esophagitis was found in only 0.9% of PPI treatment failure patients. PPI treatment failure was associated with a significantly decreased odds ratio of erosive esophagitis compared with no treatment, adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index (adjusted odds ratio 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Heartburn patients in whom once-daily PPI treatment failed demonstrated a paucity of GERD-related findings compared with those receiving no treatment. Eosinophilic esophagitis was uncommon in PPI therapy failure patients. Upper endoscopy seems to have a very low diagnostic yield in this patient population.

Antithrombotic Strategies After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic regimen after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review of various anticoagulation strategies following surgical or transcatheter bAVR (TAVR). METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and gray literature through June 2017 for controlled clinical trials and cohort studies that directly compared different antithrombotic strategies in nonpregnant adults who had undergone bAVR. We assessed risk of bias and graded the strength of the evidence using established methods. RESULTS: Of 4,554 titles reviewed, 6 clinical trials and 13 cohort studies met inclusion criteria. We found moderate-strength evidence that mortality, thromboembolic events, and bleeding rates are similar between aspirin and warfarin after surgical bAVR. Observational data suggest lower mortality and thromboembolic events with aspirin combined with warfarin compared with aspirin alone after surgical bAVR, but the effect size is small and the combination is associated with a substantial increase in bleeding risk. We found insufficient evidence for all other treatment comparisons in surgical bAVR. In TAVR patients, we found moderate-strength evidence that mortality, stroke, and major cardiac events are similar between dual antiplatelet therapy and aspirin alone, though a nonsignificantly lower rate of bleeding occurred with aspirin alone. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with warfarin or aspirin leads to similar outcomes after surgical bAVR. Combining aspirin with warfarin may lead to a small decrease in thromboembolism and mortality, but is accompanied by increased bleeding. For TAVR patients, aspirin is equivalent to dual antiplatelet therapy for reducing thromboembolism and mortality, with a possible decrease in bleeding.

Ability of citizens in a senior living community to perform lifesaving cardiac skills and appropriately utilize AEDs.

The objective of this study was to assess the ability of citizens in a senior living community (SLC) to perform adequate cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and appropriately utilize an automated external defibrillator (AED) in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario (SCAS). This study was a prospective, observational study; a convenience sample of SLC residents aged > 54 years was enrolled. Subjects were presented with a SCAS (adult mannequin, bystander available to assist, AED visible). Subjects' skills were rated in standardized fashion. For statistical analysis, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated as appropriate. There were 51 subjects; 69% were female; mean age was 64 years; 86% were without disabilities. Pre-retirement professions included: medical (13.7%), office/sales (41.2%), and engineer/science (15.7%). Subjects had previous American Heart Association first-responder training (CPR and AED use) as follows: none (22%), within 0 to 6 months (47%), 7-12 months (4%), > 12 months (27%). During the SCAS, subjects performed inconsistently on the various links in the chain of survival. Although most subjects (94%; 95% CI 84-99%) checked for unresponsiveness, only 62.8% (95% CI 48-76%) also specified "call 911 and bring me the AED." Most subjects (88%; 95% CI 76-96%) started chest compressions, however, only a minority provided high quality chest compressions (29%; 95% CI 17-44%). With respect to AED skill performance, we noted the following: 94% (95% CI 84-99%) of subjects removed the patient's clothing, 90% (95% CI 79-97%) turned the device on, 94% delivered a shock as directed, and 82% continued CPR if "no shock indicated" by AED (95% CI 69-92%). Performance was less satisfactory for the following: only 39.2% (95% CI 26-54%) continued chest compressions after AED arrival, 60.8% (95% CI 46-74%) of subjects correctly attached electrodes, and 6% (95% CI 1-16%) verbalized "clear" in advance of shock. Although many members of our sample SLC had prior training, they frequently failed to adequately perform some key steps in the SCAS. Recent efforts to place AEDs in SLCs should be augmented by a plan to adequately train residents and other available individuals (e.g., staff) in CPR/AED use.

Effectiveness of Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion Procedures to Reduce the Risk of Stroke: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is an important cause of cardioembolic stroke. Oral anticoagulants (OAC) reduce stroke risk but increase the risk of serious bleeding. Left atrial appendage (LAA) procedures have been developed to isolate the LAA from circulating blood flow, as an alternative to OAC. We conducted a systematic review of the benefits and harms of surgical and percutaneous LAA exclusion procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched multiple data sources, including Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase, through January 7, 2015. Of 2567 citations, 20 primary studies met prespecified inclusion criteria. We abstracted data on patient characteristics, stroke, mortality, and adverse effects. We assessed study quality and graded the strength of evidence using published criteria. Trials found low-strength evidence that percutaneous LAA exclusion confers similar risks of stroke and mortality as continued OAC, but this evidence was limited to the Watchman device in patients eligible for long-term OAC. Observational studies found moderate-strength evidence of serious harms with a variety of percutaneous LAA procedures. There is low-strength evidence that surgical LAA exclusion does not add significant harm during heart surgery for another indication, but evidence on stroke reduction is insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence that the Watchman device may be noninferior to long-term OAC in selected patients. Data on effectiveness of LAA exclusion devices is lacking in patients ineligible for long-term OAC. Percutaneous LAA devices are associated with high rates of procedure-related harms. Although surgical LAA exclusion during heart surgery does not seem to add incremental harm, there is insufficient evidence of benefit.