Hospital Complications and Causes of 90-Day Readmissions After Implantation of Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have emerged as an attractive option in patients with advance heart failure. Nationwide readmission database 2013 to 2014 was utilized to identify LVAD recipients using ICD-9 procedure code 37.66. The primary outcome was 90-day readmission. Readmission causes were identified using ICD-9 codes in primary diagnosis field. The secondary outcomes were LVAD associated with hospital complications. Hierarchic 2-level logistic models were used to evaluate study outcomes. We identified 4,693 LVAD recipients (mean age 57 years, 76.2% males). Of which 53.9% were readmitted in first 90 days of discharge. Cardiac causes (33.3%), bleeding (21.3%), and infections (12.4%) were leading etiologies of 90-day readmissions. Significant predictors (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval, p value) of readmission were disposition to nursing facilities (1.33, 1.09 to 1.63, p = 0.01) and longer length of stay (1.01, 1.00 to 1.01, p <0.01). Although private insurance (0.75, 0.66 to 0.86, p <0.01), and self-pay (0.58, 0.42 to 0.81, p <0.01) predicted lower readmissions. Cardiac complications (36.3%), major bleeding (29.8%), and postoperative infections (10.4%) were most common LVAD-related complications. In conclusion, high early readmission rate was observed among LVAD recipients with Cardiac complications, bleeding complications, and infections were driving force for major complications and most of readmissions.

Meta-Analysis of Aspirin Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Although aspirin monotherapy is considered the standard of care after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), more recent evidence has suggested a benefit with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after CABG. We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of aspirin monotherapy with DAPT in patients after CABG. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to surgical technique (i.e., on vs off pump) and clinical presentation (acute coronary syndrome vs no acute coronary syndrome). Random effects overall risk ratios (RR) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird model. Eight randomized control trials and 9 observational studies with a total of 11,135 patients were included. At a mean follow-up of 23 months, major adverse cardiac events (10.3% vs 12.1%, RR 0.84, confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 0.99), all-cause mortality (5.7% vs 7.0%, RR 0.67, CI 0.48 to 0.94), and graft occlusion (11.3% vs 14.2%, RR 0.79, CI 0.63 to 0.98) were less with DAPT than with aspirin monotherapy. There was no difference in myocardial infarction, stroke, or major bleeding between the 2 groups. In conclusion, DAPT appears to be associated with a reduction in graft occlusion, major adverse cardiac events, and all-cause mortality, without significantly increasing major bleeding compared with aspirin monotherapy in patients undergoing CABG.

Staged versus index procedure complete revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease reduces adverse events compared to infarct-related artery only revascularization. Whether complete revascularization should be done as multivessel intervention during index procedure or as a staged procedure remains controversial. METHOD: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of multivessel intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease as staged procedure versus at the time of index procedure. Composite of death or myocardial infarction was the primary outcome. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios were calculated using random effect model. RESULTS: Six randomized studies with a total of 1126 patients met our selection criteria. At a mean follow-up of 13 months, composite of myocardial infarction or death (7.2% vs 11.7%, RR: 1.66, 95%CI: 1.09-2.52, P = 0.02), all cause mortality (RR: 2.55, 95%CI: 1.42-4.58, P < 0.01), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 2.8, 95%CI: 1.33-5.86, P = 0.01), and short-term (<30 days) mortality (RR: 3.54, 95%CI: 1.51-8.29, P < 0.01) occurred less often in staged versus index procedure multivessel revascularization. There was no difference in major adverse cardiac events (RR: 1.14, 95%CI: 0.88-1.49, P = 0.33), repeat myocardial infarction (RR: 1.14, 95%CI: 0.68-1.92, P = 0.61), and repeat revascularization (RR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.66-1.28, P = 0.62). CONCLUSION: In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease, a strategy of complete revascularization as a staged procedure compared to index procedure revascularization results in reduced mortality without an increase in repeat myocardial infarction or need for repeat revascularization.

Safety and Efficacy of Dual Versus Triple Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Choosing an antithrombotic regimen after coronary intervention in patients with concomitant indication for anticoagulation is a challenge commonly encountered by clinicians. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials comparing outcomes of triple therapy (dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant) with dual therapy (single antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulant) in patients taking long-term anticoagulants after percutaneous coronary intervention. Major bleeding was the primary outcome. Random effects overall risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird model. RESULTS: Nine observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials with a total of 7276 patients met our selection criteria. At a mean follow-up of 10.8 months major bleeding was higher in the triple therapy cohort compared with dual therapy (6.6% vs 3.8%; RR 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-1.98; P <.01). No difference was observed between the 2 groups for all-cause mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.43; P = .93), major adverse cardiac events (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.8-1.32; P = .83), thromboembolic events (RR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.49-2.10; P = .96), myocardial infarction (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.09; P = .21), stent thrombosis (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46-1.3; P = .33), and target vessel revascularization (RR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.15; P = .33). CONCLUSION: In patients receiving anticoagulant therapy, a strategy of single antiplatelet therapy confers a benefit of less major bleeding with no difference in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or thromboembolic event rate compared with dual antiplatelet therapy.

Electrocardiogram-based scoring system for predicting secondary pulmonary hypertension: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, we have developed an electrocardiogram-based scoring system to predict secondary pulmonary hypertension. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Single tertiary-care hospital in Scranton, Pennsylvania, USA. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred and fifty-two consecutive patients undergoing right heart catheterization between 2006 and 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Surface electrocardiogram was assessed for R-wave in lead V1 ≥ 6mm, R-wave in V6 ≤ 3mm, S-wave in V6 ≥ 3mm, right atrial enlargement, right axis deviation and left atrial enlargement. Pulmonary hypertension was defined as mean pulmonary artery pressure ≥25 mmHg, determined by right heart catheterization. RESULTS: A total of 297 (54%) patients in the study cohort had pulmonary hypertension. In total, 332 patients from the study cohort formed the development cohort and the remaining 220 patients formed the validation cohort. In the development cohort, based on log odds ratios of association, RAE, LAE, RAD, R-wave in V1 ≥ 6 mm were assigned scores of 5, 2, 2 and 1, respectively, to form a 10-point scoring system "Scranton PHT (SP) score". SP scores of 5 points and 7 points in DC showed C-statistic of 0.83 and 0.89, respectively, for discriminating pulmonary hypertension. C-statistic for RAE alone was significantly lower compared to an SP score of 7 (0.83 vs. 0.89, P = 0.021). The reliability of SP score in the validation cohort was acceptable. CONCLUSION: SP score provides a good point-of-care tool to predict pulmonary hypertension in patients with clinical suspicion of it.