Nonusefulness of Antithrombotic Therapy After Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.

Controversy persists regarding the advisability of anticoagulation for the early period after biological surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). We aim to examine the impact of various antithrombotic regimens on outcomes in a large cohort of biological AVR patients. Records of 1,111 consecutive adult patients who underwent surgical biological AVR at our institution between 2013 and 2017 were reviewed. Outcomes included stroke, bleeding, and death at 3 and 12 months. Treatment regimens included (1) no therapy, (2) anticoagulants (warfarin or Factor Xa inhibitors), (2) antiplateles (various), and (4) anticoagulants + antiplatelets. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to track outcomes, and Cox-proportional hazards regression models were conducted to analyze effects of different therapies on adverse events. At 3 months, thromboembolic events were low and not significantly different between the no therapy group (2.2%) and anticoagulation (2.8%) or anticoagulation + antiplatelet (3.6%) or all groups (3.7%). The antiplatelet group was just significantly lower, at 2.2%. However, this was driven by non-stroke cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease. The incidence of death at 3 months was low and not significantly different between all groups. At 12 months, there were no thromboembolic benefits between groups, but bleeding events were significantly higher in the anticoagulation group (no therapy (1.4%), anticoagulation (8.4%), antiplatelet (4.5%), anticoagulation + antiplatelet (7.9%)). In conclusion, none of the antithrombotic regimens showed benefits in stroke or survival at 3 or 12 months after biological AVR. Anticoagulation increased bleeding events. Routine anticoagulation after biological AVR appears to be unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Prevalence of connective tissue diseases in egyptian patients presenting with Fever of unknown origin.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of connective tissue diseases in patients presenting with fever of unknown origin (FUO). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study thirty patients diagnosed as FUO (Group 1), in 2008, were included in an observational study and diagnostic workup. Additionally, retrospective analysis of seventy patients' files (Group 2), for patients who presented with prolonged unexplained pyrexia to the same hospital in the previous two years, was performed. Patients were subjected to: full clinical assessment including full history taking, thorough clinical examination, laboratory investigations including the basic investigations for patients with prolonged fever, complete blood count, erythrocytes sedimentation rate, urine analysis and culture, blood culture, sputum culture and plain chest X ray. Further diagnostic work up and/or procedures were requested according to the potential diagnostic clues (PDC) present in every patient. RESULTS: Out of 100 FUO patients, 50% were found to have infectious diseases, 24% were found to have connective tissue diseases, 8% miscellaneous causes and 7% neoplastic diseases (P < 0.05). In 11 patients no definite cause for FUO could be identified. Connective tissue patients were: eight systemic lupus patients (33.3%), five patients with familial mediterranean fever (20.8%), four patients with rheumatoid arthritis (16.6%), three patients (12.5%) with Still's disease and Rheumatic fever and one patient with Behçet syndrome/Crohn's disease (4.3%), (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the advanced technology, FUO remains a challenging medical problem. Infections were the most common cause of FUO in Egypt, confirming the trends found in other parts of the world. There was an increased prevalence of connective tissue patients presented with prolonged unexplained fever. A keen clinical eye, meticulous history taking and repeated physical examination remained the most important diagnostic tools in FUO patients.