Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Results from International Collaborative LBBAP Study (I-CLAS) Group.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a guideline-recommended therapy in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF, 36%-50%) and left bundle branch block or indication for ventricular pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using left bundle branch area pacing or His bundle pacing has been shown to be a safe and physiologic alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and CSP for patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent BVP or CSP with HFmrEF between January 2018 and June 2023 at 16 international centers were included. The primary outcome was the composite end point of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary end points included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and individual end points of death and HFH. RESULTS: A total of 1004 patients met inclusion criteria: BVP, 178; CSP, 826 (His bundle pacing, 154; left bundle branch area pacing, 672). Mean age was 73 ± 13 years; female, 34%; and LVEF, 42% ± 5%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower compared with BVP (129 ± 21 ms vs 144 ± 19 ms; P < .001). LVEF improved during follow-up in both groups (49% ± 10% vs 48% ± 10%; P = .32). CSP was independently associated with significant reduction in the primary end point of time to death or HFH compared with BVP (22% vs 34%; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.94; P = .025). CONCLUSION: CSP was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in this large cohort of patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP will be necessary to confirm these results.

Pulmonary pathophysiology development of COVID-19 assessed by serial Electrical Impedance Tomography in the MaastrICCht cohort.

Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection present with different lung compliance and progression of disease differs. Measures of lung mechanics in SARS-CoV-2 patients may unravel different pathophysiologic mechanisms during mechanical ventilation. The objective of this prospective observational study is to describe whether Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) guided positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels unravel changes in EIT-derived parameters over time and whether the changes differ between survivors and non-survivors. Serial EIT-measurements of alveolar overdistension, collapse, and compliance change in ventilated SARS-CoV-2 patients were analysed. In 80 out of 94 patients, we took 283 EIT measurements (93 from day 1-3 after intubation, 66 from day 4-6, and 124 from day 7 and beyond). Fifty-one patients (64%) survived the ICU. At admission mean PaO2/FiO2-ratio was 184.3 (SD 61.4) vs. 151.3 (SD 54.4) mmHg, (p = 0.017) and PEEP was 11.8 (SD 2.8) cmH2O vs. 11.3 (SD 3.4) cmH2O, (p = 0.475), for ICU survivors and non-survivors. At day 1-3, compliance was ~ 55 mL/cmH2O vs. ~ 45 mL/cmH2O in survivors vs. non-survivors. The intersection of overdistension and collapse curves appeared similar at a PEEP of ~ 12-13 cmH2O. At day 4-6 compliance changed to ~ 50 mL/cmH2O vs. ~ 38 mL/cmH2O. At day 7 and beyond, compliance was ~ 38 mL/cmH2O with the intersection at a PEEP of ~ 9 cmH2O vs. ~ 25 mL/cmH2O with overdistension intersecting at collapse curves at a PEEP of ~ 7 cmH2O. Surviving SARS-CoV-2 patients show more favourable EIT-derived parameters and a higher compliance compared to non-survivors over time. This knowledge is valuable for discovering the different groups.

miRNAs Related to Different Processes of Fracture Healing: An Integrative Overview.

Fracture healing is a complex, dynamic process that is directed by cellular communication and requires multiple cell types, such as osteoblasts, osteoclasts, and immune cells. Physiological fracture healing can be divided into several phases that consist of different processes, such as angiogenesis, osteogenesis, and bone resorption/remodelling. This is needed to guarantee proper bone regeneration after fracture. Communication and molecular regulation between different cell types and within cells is therefore key in successfully orchestrating these processes to ensure adequate bone healing. Among others, microRNAs (miRNAs) play an important role in cellular communication. microRNAs are small, non-coding RNA molecules of ~22 nucleotides long that can greatly influence gene expression by post-transcriptional regulation. Over the course of the past decade, more insights have been gained in the field of miRNAs and their role in cellular signalling in both inter- and intracellular pathways. The interplay between miRNAs and their mRNA targets, and the effect thereof on different processes and aspects within fracture healing, have shown to be interesting research topics with possible future diagnostic and therapeutic potential. Considering bone regeneration, research moreover focusses on specific microRNAs and their involvement in individual pathways. However, it is required to combine these data to gain more understanding on the effects of miRNAs in the dynamic process of fracture healing, and to enhance their translational application in research, as well as in the clinic. Therefore, this review aims to provide an integrative overview on miRNAs in fracture healing, related to several key aspects in the fracture healing cascade. A special focus will be put on hypoxia, angiogenesis, bone resorption, osteoclastogenesis, mineralization, osteogenesis, osteoblastogenesis, osteocytogenesis, and chondrogenesis.

Appropriateness of empirical antibiotic therapy and added value of adjunctive gentamicin in patients with septic shock: a prospective cohort study in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the appropriateness of empiric antibiotic therapy and the possible benefit of adding short-course gentamicin in septic shock patients with abdominal, urogenital, or an unknown focus. Secondary objectives were the effect of gentamicin addition on shock reversal and the incidence of a fungal infection. METHODS: Microbiological cultures, antibiotic treatment, and antibiotic resistance patterns of the cultured microorganisms were recorded during the first 5 days of admission. Inappropriate antibiotic therapy was defined as a prescription within the first 24 h that did not cover cultured bacteria during the first 5 days of admission and was determined in the overall group and in patients receiving adjunctive gentamicin (combination therapy) versus patients receiving monotherapy. Binomial logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association of gentamicin addition with shock reversal. RESULTS: Of 203 septic shock patients, with abdominal (n = 143), urogenital (n = 27) or unknown (n = 33) focus, 115 patients received monotherapy, and 88 patients received combination therapy. Inappropriate therapy occurred in 29 patients (14%), more frequently in monotherapy (17%) versus combination therapy (10%). Combination therapy would have been effective in 55% of patients with inappropriate monotherapy. We found no association between gentamicin addition and shock reversal (p = .223). A fungal infection was present in 22 patients (11%). CONCLUSION: Inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy occurs in 17% of septic shock patients receiving monotherapy. In 55% of these patients, additional gentamicin would have resulted in appropriate therapy. When clinical course is unfavourable, lowering the threshold for administering adjunctive aminoglycoside and antifungal therapy should be considered.