Intra-abdominal Pressure Measurement as a Predictor of Postoperative Wound Complications in Patients Undergoing Emergency Laparotomy: A Prospective Observational Study.

Introduction Elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) hampers the effective functioning of intra- and extra-abdominal organs. Despite the abundance of knowledge, routine measurement of IAP still needs to be widely incorporated in managing at-risk patients. The present study intends to assess the need for IAP measurement on abdominal wound healing in emergency laparotomy patients. Methods This prospective study was carried out over 24 months in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The IAP was measured at admission, immediately after surgery, and during the early postoperative period at 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours. The patients were evaluated for the development of wound-related complications over a follow-up period of three months post-operatively. Results Seventy-two patients were enrolled. At admission, 54 (75%) patients had intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH), of which three patients had evidence of abdominal compartment syndrome. Thirty-one (43%) patients developed postoperative wound infections. The overall incidence of wound infection was significantly higher in patients with IAH (54.3% vs. 24%, p-value = 0.04, Pearson's Chi-squared test). The frequency of wound dehiscence was greater (19.6 % vs. 4.3 %, p-value 0.14, Fischer's exact test) in patients with IAH. The median duration of hospital stay (13 vs. 8 days, p-value 0.02, Mann-Whitney U test) and healing time (30.5 vs. 18 days, p-value 0.02, Mann-Whitney U test) was significantly higher in patients with IAH. Conclusion Measurement of IAP is a relatively simple procedure that should be incorporated into the routine postoperative care of surgical patients. The presence of elevated IAP can identify the subset of patients at risk of increased postoperative wound complications.

Corrigendum: The safety and efficacy of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1130354.].

The safety and efficacy of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

Aim: Transfemoral Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TF-TAVR) is a safe and effective therapy compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients across all risk profiles using balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV). Our aim was to compare safety and efficacy of BEV vs. SEV in high-risk patients undergoing TF-TAVR. Methods and results: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of sciences for studies on patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) criteria were also examined. Six studies with 2,935 patients (1,439 to BEV and 1,496 to SEV) were included. BEV was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (2.2% vs. 4.5%; RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.82; p < 0.006) and cardiovascular mortality [(2.5% vs. 4.3%; RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; p = 0.01) at 30 days compared with SEV. Implantation of more than one valve per procedure (0.78% vs. 5.11%; RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.31; p < 0.00001), and moderate/severe AR/PVL (2.5% vs. 9.01%; RR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.17-0.48); p < 0.00001) were also lower in the BEV arm. Conclusion: BEV TAVR is associated with reduced all-cause mortality (High level of GRADE evidence), cardiovascular mortality (very low level) at 30 days compared with SEV TAVR in high surgical risk patients. Data are necessary to determine if the difference in outcomes persists in longer-term and if the same effects are seen in lower-risk patients. Systematic Review Registration: identifier, CRD42020181190.

Recurrent vesico-acetabulo-cutaneous fistula: lessons to be learnt.

A man in early 40s met with an accident with a complex pelvic fracture and extraperitoneal bladder injury and posterior urethral disruption 16 years ago. He additionally had left lumbar spinal segment mixed nerve injury, resulting in a foot drop. He underwent laparotomy and a diverting cystostomy at the time with a primary perineal urethroplasty a year later. He later developed pseudoarthrodesis of the hip joint, and poorly compliant bladder with complete block at bulbar urethra. A redo anastomotic urethroplasty was performed, hyperreflexive neurogenic bladder was managed with intravesical botox injections and underwent a hip replacement. Having defaulted botox injections, he developed a vesico-acetabulo-cutaneous fistula and the hip prosthesis was explanted. Later he underwent a ileal cystoplasty and a revision hip replacement. Ten years later, he presented with a recurrent fistula due to poor compliance with clean intermittent catheterisation. A challenging exploration with fistula excision was done with a primary bladder repair.

Operator Radiation Exposure During Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Background: The level of radiation exposure received by operators performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is not well investigated. The aim of this study is to measure the amount of radiation received by operators performing transfemoral TAVR and to identify various patient and procedural characteristics associated with increased radiation exposure. Methods: Primary (operator 1) and secondary (operator 2) operators' equivalent radiation doses in micro Sieverts (µSv) were calculated prospectively using real-time radiation dosimeters for a total of 140 consecutive transfemoral TAVRs. Corresponding eye and thorax radiation exposures between the operators were compared. Associations between various patient and procedural characteristics and the radiation exposure were tested using the t-test and Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney rank-sum test with Monte Carlo estimation. Multivariable regression analysis was also conducted. Results: Operator 1 had significantly higher cumulative equivalent radiation exposure than operator 2 (86 µSv vs 38 µSv, p-value: <0.0001) which was consistent at the level of the thorax (67 µSv vs 22 µSv, p-value: <0.0001), but not at the level of the eye (16.5 µSv vs 15 µSv, p-value: 0.30). On multivariable analysis, patient obesity and intraprocedural complications were associated with higher radiation exposure to both operators. Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention led to excessive radiation exposure to the secondary operator. Conclusions: Transfemoral TAVR is associated with a modest amount of radiation exposure to operators and is significantly higher for the primary operator than for the secondary operator.

Clinical Characteristics and In-Hospital Mortality for COVID-19 Across The Globe.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous case series have reported on the baseline characteristics and in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19, however, these studies included patients localized in a specific geographic region. The purpose of our study was to identify differences in the clinical characteristics and the in-hospital mortality of patients with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 internationally. METHODS: A comprehensive search of all published literature on adult patients with laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 that reported on the clinical characteristics and in-hospital mortality was performed. Groups were compared using a Chi-square test with Yates correction of continuity. A two-tailed p value of less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: After screening 516 studies across the globe, 43 studies from 12 countries were included in our final analysis. Patients with COVID-19 in America and Europe were older compared to their Asian counterparts. Europe had the highest percentage of male patients. American and European patients had a higher incidence of co-morbid conditions (p < 0.05 for all variables). In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in America (22.23%) and Europe (22.9%) compared to Asia (12.65%) (p < 0.0001), but no difference was seen when compared with each other (p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant variation in the clinical characteristics in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 across the globe. In-hospital mortality is similar between America and Europe, but considerably higher than Asia.

Recent clinical trials in valvular heart diseases.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In recent years, no other field of cardiology has experienced a greater influx of transformational therapeutic options as valvular heart disease. The present review discusses the landmark trials published in the last 18 months that have shaped the modern day management of valvular heart diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: There have been several landmark trials in recent years, which have expanded the indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement to low-risk surgical patients and the use of MitraClip for patients with functional mitral regurgitation. Options for transcatheter management of right-sided valvular disease also continue to evolve, including promising results from early feasibility studies. SUMMARY: The development of novel transcatheter therapies for valvular heart disease has expanded the armamentarium of physicians treating patients with valvular heart disease. The present review will focus on the recent (within 2 years) trials in this field of interest.

Orbital atherectomy versus rotational atherectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery calcification is associated with poor outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Atheroablative techniques such as orbital atherectomy (OA) and rotational atherectomy (RA) are routinely utilized to treat these calcified lesions in order to optimize lesion preparation and facilitate stent delivery. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the performance of OA versus RA in patients with calcified coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing PCI. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared OA versus RA in patients with calcified coronary artery disease undergoing PCI and reported on outcomes of interest. Event rates were compared using a forest plot of odds ratios using a random-effects model assuming interstudy heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of five observational studies (total number of patients = 1872; OA = 535, RA = 1337) were included in the final analysis. On pooled analysis, OA compared to RA was associated with a significant reduction in fluoroscopy times (OR = -6.33; 95% CI = -9.90 to -2.76; p < .0005; I2 = 82). There was no difference between the two techniques in terms of contrast volume, coronary artery dissection, device induced arterial perforation, cardiac tamponade, slow flow/no reflow, periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI), in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, 30-day MI, 30-day target vessel revascularization (TVR), and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). CONCLUSION: Except for lower fluoroscopy time with OA, there are no significant differences between OA and RA in relation to procedural, periprocedural, and thirty day outcomes among patients with calcified CAD undergoing PCI.

Three to four years outcomes of the absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus second-generation drug-eluting stent: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the outcomes of absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) compared with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) after 3 years, the approximate time of complete polymer bioresorption. BACKGROUND: BVS were found to be inferior to second-generation DES in early and mid-term outcomes with a higher rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and device thrombosis (DT). Improper implantation techniques and incomplete bioresorption of the poly-l-lactide (PLLA) polymer were sighted as possible reasons. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search for all randomized control trials that compared absorb BVS to second-generation DES and reported outcomes of interest after 3 years of absorb BVS implantation. Assuming interstudy heterogeneity, a random-effects analysis was conducted with odds ratio as the effect size of choice to compare the event rates between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of four studies (n = 3,245, BVS = 2075, DES = 1,170) were included in the final analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that there was no difference between absorb BVS and second-generation DES with respect to target lesion failure (TLF) (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 0.73-2.07, p = 0.44), TV-MI (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.42-2.53, p = 0.95), target lesion revascularization (TLR) (OR = 1.61, 95% CI = 0.77-3.33, p = 0.20) and definite/probable DT (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.10-5.07, p = 0.74). Also, there was no difference in cardiac mortality (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.22-1.94, p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Between 3 and 4 years of follow-up, patients receiving absorb BVS did not have significantly different outcomes, in terms of TLF, TV-MI, TLR, DT, and cardiac mortality, compared to DES.

Left main percutaneous coronary intervention-Radial versus femoral access: A systematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Debate still occurs of the benefits of transradial access (TRA) versus transfemoral access (TFA), especially for complex percutaneous coronary interventions. Recent data has shown equivalent efficacy and improved safety outcomes with TRA. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis comparing procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of TRA versus TFA in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main (LM) disease. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared TRA with TFA in patients undergoing PCI of LM disease. Event rates were compared using the odds ratio (OR) as a measure of effect size. Random-effects models were used to account for interstudy heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 12 observational studies including 17,258 patients (TRA n = 7,971; TFA n = 9,287) were included. Compared to TFA, TRA was associated with a significant reduction in access site bleeding (OR = 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.04-0.26; I2 = 0%; p < .0001), major bleeding (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.27-0.69; I2 = 0%; p = .0005) or any bleeding episode (OR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.27-0.69; I2 = 12%; p = .0004). Rates of access site or vascular complications (OR = 0.26; 95% CI = 0.17-0.40; I2 = 0%; p < .00001) and in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.49; 95% CI = 0.31-0.79: I2 = 11%; p = .004) were also lower in the TRA group. There were no significant differences in procedural outcomes between TRA and TFA except for a significant reduction in the rate of long-term target vessel revascularization (TVR) in the TRA group (OR = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.41-0.94: I2 = 0%: p = .02). We further performed a subgroup analysis for unprotected left main PCI only, which showed a significant reduction in rates of any bleeding episode, lower access site or vascular complications, and in-hospital mortality with TRA as compared to TFA. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing PCI for LM disease via TRA have with less bleeding, reduced access site or vascular complications, reduced in-hospital mortality, comparable procedural success, and possibly better long-term clinical efficacy when compared to those undergoing the procedure via TFA.

Mitraclip Plus Medical Therapy Versus Medical Therapy Alone for Functional Mitral Regurgitation: A Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of MitraClip plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone in patients with functional mitral regurgitation (FMR). FMR caused by left ventricular dysfunction is associated with poor prognosis. Whether MitraClip improves clinical outcomes in this patient population remains controversial. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies with propensity score matching (PSM) that compared MitraClip plus medical therapy with medical therapy alone for patients with FMR and reported on subsequent mortality, heart failure re-hospitalization, and other outcomes of interest. Event rates were compared using a random-effects model with odds ratio as the effect size. RESULTS: Five studies (n = 1513; MitraClip = 796, medical therapy = 717) were included in the final analysis. MitraClip plus medical therapy compared to medical therapy alone was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44-0.99, P = 0.04) and heart failure (HF) re-hospitalization rates (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.36-0.91, P = 0.02). There was reduced need for heart transplantation or mechanical support requirement (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.25-0.91, P = 0.02) and unplanned mitral valve surgery (OR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.07-0.61, P = 0.004) in the MitraClip group. No effect was observed on cardiac mortality (P = 0.42) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: MitraClip plus medical therapy improves overall mortality and reduces HF re-hospitalization rates compared to medical therapy alone in patients with FMR.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients: An updated meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients. BACKGROUND: TAVR is proven to be safe and effective in patients with high- and intermediate-risk aortic stenosis. However, there is limited data on the safety and efficacy of TAVR in patients with low surgical risk. METHODS: We conducted an electronic database search of all published data for studies that compared TAVR to SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients (mean society for thoracic surgery [STS] score <4% and/or logistic EuroScore <10%) and reported on subsequent all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, stroke rates, and other outcomes of interest. Event rates were compared with a forest plot of odds ratio using a random-effects model assuming interstudy heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of seven studies (n = 6,293 patients; TAVR = 2,912; and SAVR = 3,381) were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.50-1.36, I2 = 51%), cardiac mortality (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.32-1.02, I2 = 0%), new pacemaker implantation (OR = 3.11; 95% CI 0.58-16.60, I2 = 89%), moderate/severe paravalvular leak (PVL; OR 3.50; 95% CI 0.64-19.10, I2 = 54%) and rate of stroke (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.34-1.15, I2 = 39%) at 1-year follow-up. TAVR was found to have a significantly lower incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10-0.24, I2 = 38%) as compared to SAVR. CONCLUSION: The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate similar rates of all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and stroke at 1-year follow-up in patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR. TAVR is associated with a lower incidence of AF relative to SAVR. However, there was a significantly higher incidence of PVL with TAVR compared to SAVR.