Procedural Insights and Clinical Outcomes of a Novel Superior Vena Cava Occlusion Device for Acute Heart Failure: A Single-Center Experience.

The preCARDIA system is a device combining a balloon-mounted catheter and an extracorporeal system designed for intermittent occlusion of the superior vena cava. Studies have established safety and efficacy in acute decompensated heart failure. We present a single-center experience detailing 90 days outcomes and procedural insights. A 24 hours therapy session demonstrated reduced pulmonary wedge pressures and increased urine output, with cardiac output remaining unchanged. There was one readmission and no heart failure-related readmissions at 90 days. The preCARDIA device appears to be a safe mechanical diuretic strategy to manage patients with acute decompensated heart failure beyond current therapeutic strategies.

Destination LVAD therapy in the current era of the heart transplant allocation system.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article aims to shed light on the major implications of the new allocation system by discussing the observed outcomes and complications and suggesting a few steps to prevent and manage those potential challenges. RECENT FINDINGS: The new allocation system implemented in 2018 aimed to prioritize high-risk patients and provide a better equitable opportunity for heart transplantation. However, despite the success in reducing wait-list mortality, this change brought up many direct and indirect challenges to patient care, such as worsening ischemic time and an increase in the use of temporary mechanical support at the expense of durable LVADs. Moreover, the parallel advancement in LVAD technology and the associated improvement in patient outcomes added another layer to the complexity of shared decision-making in the advanced heart failure population. SUMMARY: LVAD patient population is expected to continue to expand. This growth will also be accompanied by longer wait-time and a higher prevalence of LVAD complications. Advanced technologies such as wireless devices and remote monitoring are quite promising in that regard. Also, advanced artificial intelligence algorithms might help to improve patient selection, ameliorate early detection of complications, and offer further guidance to manage those complications.

Rotational Atherectomy in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of rotational atherectomy (RA) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is considered relatively contraindicated. There have been several observational studies showing RA use in ACS, however, no systemic studies have been undertaken. We sought to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of RA PCI in ACS by performing a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials for any studies that evaluated the role of RA PCI in ACS. The outcomes analyzed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, short and long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACE), procedural complications and cardiac perforations. RESULTS: There was a total of 8 retrospective studies with a total population of 1237 with a median follow up of 23 months. The median age of the included patient was 73. Angiographic success rate was 97.4%. The rate of all-cause mortality and cardiac mortality were 5% (range 1-12%, p < 0.001, I2 = 92%) and 2% (range 0-5%, P = 0.03, I2 = 58%) respectively. In-hospital MACE and long-term MACE were 7% (range 3-13%, p < 0.001, I2 = 87%) and 29% (range 21-37%, p = 0.21, I2 = 34%) respectively. The incidence of total procedural complications was noted to be 7% (range 2-14%, p < 0.001, I2 = 90%). Rate of perforation was 1% (range 0-1%, p = 0.9, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Our results show that RA PCI is feasible in ACS with comparable procedural complications and short-term MACE, but with a higher long-term MACE rate compared to RA PCI in routine cases.

Vaccination persuasion online: a qualitative study of two provaccine and two vaccine-skeptical websites.

BACKGROUND: Current concerns about vaccination resistance often cite the Internet as a source of vaccine controversy. Most academic studies of vaccine resistance online use quantitative methods to describe misinformation on vaccine-skeptical websites. Findings from these studies are useful for categorizing the generic features of these websites, but they do not provide insights into why these websites successfully persuade their viewers. To date, there have been few attempts to understand, qualitatively, the persuasive features of provaccine or vaccine-skeptical websites. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to examine the persuasive features of provaccine and vaccine-skeptical websites. The qualitative analysis was conducted to generate hypotheses concerning what features of these websites are persuasive to people seeking information about vaccination and vaccine-related practices. METHODS: This study employed a fully qualitative case study methodology that used the anthropological method of thick description to detail and carefully review the rhetorical features of 1 provaccine government website, 1 provaccine hospital website, 1 vaccine-skeptical information website focused on general vaccine safety, and 1 vaccine-skeptical website focused on a specific vaccine. The data gathered were organized into 5 domains: website ownership, visual and textual content, user experience, hyperlinking, and social interactivity. RESULTS: The study found that the 2 provaccine websites analyzed functioned as encyclopedias of vaccine information. Both of the websites had relatively small digital ecologies because they only linked to government websites or websites that endorsed vaccination and evidence-based medicine. Neither of these websites offered visitors interactive features or made extensive use of the affordances of Web 2.0. The study also found that the 2 vaccine-skeptical websites had larger digital ecologies because they linked to a variety of vaccine-related websites, including government websites. They leveraged the affordances of Web 2.0 with their interactive features and digital media. CONCLUSIONS: By employing a rhetorical framework, this study found that the provaccine websites analyzed concentrate on the accurate transmission of evidence-based scientific research about vaccines and government-endorsed vaccination-related practices, whereas the vaccine-skeptical websites focus on creating communities of people affected by vaccines and vaccine-related practices. From this personal framework, these websites then challenge the information presented in scientific literature and government documents. At the same time, the vaccine-skeptical websites in this study are repositories of vaccine information and vaccination-related resources. Future studies on vaccination and the Internet should take into consideration the rhetorical features of provaccine and vaccine-skeptical websites and further investigate the influence of Web 2.0 community-building features on people seeking information about vaccine-related practices.