Infective endocarditis surgery timing.

BACKGROUND: The optimum timing of surgical intervention in complicated left-sided infective endocarditis is not well established. Guidelines from various professional societies are not consistent regarding this. Data concerning this remains limited with conflicting results. METHODS: The national inpatient database (NIS) was used to identify patients hospitalized from the year 2016 to 2020 for infective endocarditis and who underwent surgical intervention for complicated left-sided endocarditis. Primary and secondary outcomes were analyzed in patients who had surgical intervention within 7 days (early surgery group) and after 7 days (late surgery group) of the index hospitalization. RESULTS: Primary outcome [composite of all-cause death, acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA), peripheral septic emboli, intracranial or intraspinal abscess, and cardiac arrest] was better in the early surgery group compared to the late surgery group 32.6 % vs 45.1 % [adjusted Odds ratio (aOR) = 0.59, 95 % Confidence interval (CI) = 0.52-0.67, P value â‰ª 0.001]. This was mainly due to better incidence of acute CVA (15.7 %vs 24 %, aOR = 0.59, CI = 0.50-0.69, P value â‰ª 0.001), peripheral septic emboli (18.5 % vs 27.3 %, aOR = 0.60, CI = 0.52-0.70, P value â‰ª 0.001) and intracranial/intraspinal abscess (1.2 % vs 4.74 %, aOR = 0.24, CI = 0.14-0.38, P value â‰ª 0.001). There is no difference in the incidence of all-cause in-hospital death (7.57 % vs 7.75 % aOR = 0.97, CI = 0.77-1.23, P value = 0.82) or cardiac arrest (3.4 % vs 3.54 %, aOR = 0.96, CI = 0.68-1.35, P value = 0.80). CONCLUSION: Surgical intervention within 7 days of index hospitalization is associated with a better incidence of acute CVA, peripheral septic emboli, and intracranial or intraspinal abscess but not with a better incidence of all-cause in-hospital death.

TAVR vs balloon aortic valvotomy for severe aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock: An insight from the National Inpatient Sample database.

BACKGROUND: Severe Aortic stenosis (AS) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) represents a grave clinical condition with limited treatment options. Evidence from small observation studies favors that Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) might be a feasible option in these patients in contrast to emergent Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty (BAV) which is associated with very high short and long-term mortality. METHODS: 11,405 hospitalizations with severe AS complicated by CS between 2016 and 2020 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) Database, and patients were then stratified according to whether they received TAVR or BAV. Propensity-score matching was used to account for differences in the baseline characteristics. Primary and secondary outcomes were then compared between 3485 hospitalizations in direct TAVR group and with 3485 matched hospitalizations in the BAV group. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause in-hospital death, acute cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and myocardial infarction (MI). Secondary outcomes and safety outcomes were also compared between the two groups. RESULTS: TAVR was associated with fewer primary outcomes events as compared to BAV {36.8 % vs 56.8 %, aOR (95%CI) = 0.38(0.30-0.47)}, due to fewer all-cause in-hospital deaths {17.8 % vs 38.9 %, aOR (95%CI) =0.34 (0.26-0.43)} and MI {12.3 % vs 32.4 %, aOR (95%CI) = 0.29 (0.22-0.39)}. TAVR was associated with higher rates of acute CVA {6.17 % vs 3.44 %, aOR (95%CI) = 1.84 (1.08-3.21)} and pacemaker implantation post procedure {11.9 % vs 6.03 %, aOR (95%CI) = 2.10 (1.41-3.18)}. CONCLUSION: Direct TAVR in shock and severe Aortic stenosis is a better strategy than rescue Balloon aortic valvotomy.

Myocardial injury in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The majority of studies evaluating the effect of myocardial injury on the survival of COVID-19 patients have been performed outside of the United States (U.S.). These studies have often utilized definitions of myocardial injury that are not guideline-based and thus, not applicable to the U.S. METHODS: The current study is a two-part investigation of the effect of myocardial injury on the clinical outcome of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The first part is a retrospective analysis of 268 patients admitted to our healthcare system in Toledo, Ohio, U.S.; the second part is a systematic review and meta-analysis of all similar studies performed within the U.S. RESULTS: In our retrospective analysis, patients with myocardial injury were older (mean age 73 vs. 59 years, P 0.001), more likely to have hypertension (86% vs. 67%, P 0.005), underlying cardiovascular disease (57% vs. 24%, P 0.001), and chronic kidney disease (26% vs. 10%, P 0.004). Myocardial injury was also associated with a lower likelihood of discharge to home (35% vs. 69%, P 0.001), and a higher likelihood of death (33% vs. 10%, P 0.001), acute kidney injury (74% vs. 30%, P 0.001), and circulatory shock (33% vs. 12%, P 0.001). Our meta-analysis included 12,577 patients from 8 U.S. states and 55 hospitals who were hospitalized with COVID-19, with the finding that myocardial injury was significantly associated with increased mortality (HR 2.43, CI 2.28-3.6, P 0.0005). The prevalence of myocardial injury ranged from 9.2 to 51%, with a mean prevalence of 27.2%. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the U.S. have a high prevalence of myocardial injury, which was associated with poorer survival and outcomes.