Impact of empagliflozin on right ventricular parameters and function among patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition reduces cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and is associated with a reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass index. However, the impact on right ventricular (RV) remodeling is unknown. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to assess the impact of SGLT2 inhibition on RV parameters and function in T2DM and coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: In EMPA-HEART CardioLink-6, 97 patients with T2DM and CAD were randomly assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 49) once daily or placebo (n = 48). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline and after 6 months. RV mass index (RVMi), RV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume index (RVEDVi, RVESVi) and RV ejection fraction (RVEF) were assessed in blinded fashion. RESULTS: At baseline, mean RVMi (± SD) (11.8 ± 2.4 g/m2), RVEF (53.5 ± 4.8%), RVEDVi (64.3 ± 13.2 mL/m2) and RVESVi (29.9 ± 6.9 mL/m2) were within normal limits and were similar between the empagliflozin and placebo groups. Over 6 months, there were no significant differences in RVMi (- 0.11 g/m2, [95% CI - 0.81 to 0.60], p = 0.76), RVEF (0.54%, [95% CI - 1.4 to 2.4], p = 0.58), RVEDVi (- 1.2 mL/m2, [95% CI - 4.1 to 1.7], p = 0.41) and RVESVi (- 0.81 mL/m2, [95% CI - 2.5 to 0.90], p = 0.35) in the empaglifozin group as compared with the placebo group. In both groups, there was no significant correlation between RVMi and LVMi changes from baseline to 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis, SGLT2 inhibition with empagliflozin had no impact on RVMi and RV volumes in patients with T2DM and CAD. The potentially differential effect of empagliflozin on the LV and RV warrants further investigation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL:  https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02998970?cond=NCT02998970&draw=2&rank=1 . Unique identifier: NCT02998970.

Automation, machine learning, and artificial intelligence in echocardiography: A brave new world.

Automation, machine learning, and artificial intelligence (AI) are changing the landscape of echocardiography providing complimentary tools to physicians to enhance patient care. Multiple vendor software programs have incorporated automation to improve accuracy and efficiency of manual tracings. Automation with longitudinal strain and 3D echocardiography has shown great accuracy and reproducibility allowing the incorporation of these techniques into daily workflow. This will give further experience to nonexpert readers and allow the integration of these essential tools into more echocardiography laboratories. The potential for machine learning in cardiovascular imaging is still being discovered as algorithms are being created, with training on large data sets beyond what traditional statistical reasoning can handle. Deep learning when applied to large image repositories will recognize complex relationships and patterns integrating all properties of the image, which will unlock further connections about the natural history and prognosis of cardiac disease states. The purpose of this review article was to describe the role and current use of automation, machine learning, and AI in echocardiography and discuss potential limitations and challenges of in the future.

Elevated end-diastolic wall stress after acute myocardial infarction predicts adverse cardiovascular outcomes and longer hospital length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (MI) leads to ventricular remodeling in response to oxygen demand. Such changes include left ventricular (LV) dilatation and increased myocardial wall stress. Prior studies showed that wall stress is a vital parameter of cardiac remodeling. However, outcome data are lacking. We aim to investigate wall stress post-MI in relation to biomarkers of cardiac remodeling and cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: Patients presenting with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) requiring primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) were enrolled prospectively. LVEF and volume-based end-diastolic (EDWS) and end-systolic (ESWS) wall stress were measured from predischarge echocardiograms. Serum samples were collected for measurement of serum biomarkers. We identified 81 patients meeting inclusion criteria (64% men, 36% women) with a mean age of 61. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as 1-year composite endpoint of cardiac mortality, recurrent MI, revascularization, or stroke. Length of hospitalization (LOH) was recorded. RESULTS: Major adverse cardiovascular events-positive patients (n = 12) had significantly higher EDWS levels (15.87 vs 12.33, P = 0.045), and galectin-3 levels (19.07 vs 11.75, P = 0.015), and lower LVEF (40.0% vs 48.4%, P = 0.023) compared to MACE-negative patients. Patients with LOH > 72 hours (n = 33) had significantly higher EDWS, galectin-3, and peak troponin, and lower LVEF compared to patients with LOH < 72 hours. EDWS positively correlated with LOH and galectin-3. EDWS was an independent predictor of MACE by binomial regression analysis. CONCLUSION: End-diastolic walls tress is a potential prognostic tool for risk stratifying STEMI patients, providing an assessment of the functional consequences of myocardial remodeling. It is predictive of MACE independent of LVEF, associated with longer hospitalizations, and correlates with galectin-3, a biomarker of cardiac remodeling.

Comparison of radial to femoral PCI in acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review.

In randomized control trials and meta-analyses in patients with acute MI undergoing PCI, the radial artery (RA) approach compared to the femoral artery (FA) approach has shown to safely reduce access site related bleeding, length of hospitalization, and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates. However, these studies have excluded patients with cardiogenic shock. A systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies that investigated the safety of RA to FA PCI in patients with AMI and cardiogenic shock. Primary outcomes of interest was the pooled relative risk ratio (RR) of access site related bleeding. Secondary outcomes included (i) 30-day all cause mortality, (ii) major bleeding, (iii) final TIMI 3 flow, (iv) fluoroscopy time, and (v) amount of contrast volume administered. 6 observational studies with 7,753 patients met inclusion; 5,347 (69 %) with STEMI, 2,406 (31 %) with non-STEMI. In comparison of RA to FA PCI, there was less access site related bleeding (relative risk (RR) 0.11, p = 0.001), less 30-day mortality (RR 0.65, p = 0.0 < 0.001), and less major bleeding (RR of 0.46 p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in final TIMI 3 flow (p = 0.27), fluoroscopy time (p = 0.95), and contrast volume administered (p = 0.59). In conclution, despite its limitations, our analysis demonstrates an association towards lower adverse events in the RA PCI group. Although we believe that the choice of access site in a high-risk setting should be at the operator discretion, if technically feasible, the RA appears to be a reasonable vascular access approach in high-risk patients in cardiogenic shock.

New-onset atrial fibrillation in sepsis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: The development of new-onset atrial fibrillation in sepsis has been associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to retrieve articles that investigated the association of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients diagnosed with sepsis. The primary outcome of interest was the pooled risk ratio (RR) of in-hospital mortality in patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation and sepsis. RESULTS: Six studies included 3100 patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation in sepsis and 36,900 patients without new-onset atrial fibrillation in sepsis. The pooled RR for in-hospital mortality was 1.45 (95 % CI 1.32-1.60, p < 0.00001, I (2 = )24 %). New-onset atrial fibrillation was also associated with increased ICU mortality, ICU and in-hospital length of stay and stroke. New-onset atrial fibrillation occurred more in the elderly, those with a prior history of cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and those with increased severity of illness. CONCLUSION: Prospective randomised trials are needed to clarify the significance of new-onset atrial fibrillation in sepsis, optimal treatment strategies for these patients, and the benefit of systemic anticoagulation. Physicians should be aware that new-onset atrial fibrillation in sepsis is not merely an observed temporary arrhythmia but a marker of poor prognosis and should be managed accordingly.

Can parathyroid hormone be used as a biomarker for heart failure?

Secondary hyperparathyroidism in heart failure is a consequence of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone activation, chronic hyperaldosteronism, and loop diuretic usage, resulting in calcium excretion. The result is an inflammatory state with adverse effects on myocardial remodeling and systemic complications. Recent literature has suggested that elevated parathyroid hormone predicts adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure independent of serum calcium and phosphate, vitamin D deficiency, and renal insufficiency. Parathyroid hormone has been correlated with elevated brain natriuretic peptide levels, an established biomarker of heart failure severity. There are several limitations to the utilization of parathyroid hormone as a biomarker for heart failure, and further prospective studies need to be conducted to assess the value of multiple parathyroid hormone measurements over time and elucidate the role of parathyroid hormone in diastolic dysfunction. Pending further validation, there is promise for parathyroid hormone as a complementary biomarker in heart failure.

Does acetylsalicylic acid or warfarin affect the accuracy of fecal occult blood tests?

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for screening of colorectal cancer do not offer specific recommendations for cessation of antithrombotic agents prior to fecal occult blood test (FOBT). AIM: To asess the accuracy of FOBT in patients taking acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) or warfarin. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for studies that investigated the accuracy of FOBT in patients taking ASA and warfarin. The primary outcome was the pooled relative risk (RR) for true positive FOBT for detecting significant colonic neoplasia in patients taking ASA or warfarin compared with controls. The secondary outcome was a pooled RR for true positive in guaiac FOBT (g-FOBT) compared with immunochemical FOBT (i-FOBT). RESULTS: Five observational studies included 759 patients taking ASA and 1652 control subjects. In patients taking ASA, pooled RR for true positive FOBT was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.93, P=0.0009), pooled RR for true positive g-FOBT was 0.69 (95% CI 0.60-0.79, P<0.0001), whereas pooled RR for true positive i-FOBT was 1.013 (95% CI 0.81-1.30, P=0.8182). Five observational studies included 806 patients taking warfarin and 10 338 control subjects. In patients taking warfarin, pooled RR for true positive FOBT was 1.559 (95% CI 1.349-1.801, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate that in patients taking ASA, there is a decrease in the positive predictive value (PPV) of g-FOBT but no significant difference in the PPV of i-FOBT compared with control subjects for detecting significant neoplasia. In patients taking warfarin, the PPV of FOBT was increased for detection of colorectal cancer compared with control subjects.

Comparison of Heart Team vs Interventional Cardiologist Recommendations for the Treatment of Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease.

Importance: Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. Objective: To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. Results: Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original treatment decision, there was more agreement between the heart team interventional cardiologist and the original treating interventional cardiologist (138 of 163 cases [84.7%]) compared with when the heart team disagreed with the original treatment decision (14 of 71 cases [19.7%]); P < .001). Those with an original treatment of coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy, 32 of 148 patients [22.3%], 32 of 71 patients [45.1%], and 6 of 15 patients [40.0%], respectively, received a different treatment recommendation from the heart team than the original treating interventional cardiologist; the difference across the 3 groups was statistically significant (P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The heart team's recommended treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease differed from that of the original treating interventional cardiologist in up to 30% of cases. This subset of cases was associated with a lower frequency of unanimous decisions within the heart team and less concordance between the interventional cardiologists; discordance was more frequent when percutaneous coronary intervention or medication therapy were considered. Further research is needed to evaluate whether heart team decisions are associated with improvements in outcomes and, if so, how to identify patients for whom the heart team approach would be beneficial.

Comparative Outcomes of Balloon-Expandable S3 Versus Self-Expanding Evolut Bioprostheses for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

To date, comparisons between the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien S3 (S3) versus the self-expanding Evolut R or PRO (Evolut) valves have been limited with respect to procedural outcomes. We aim to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural efficiency of the S3 versus the Medtronic Evolut bioprostheses in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic stenosis. Retrospective analysis was performed of all consecutive transcatheter aortic valve implantation procedures performed through the transfemoral approach with either S3 or Evolut at our hospital between September 2015 and January 2019. A total of 581 patients were included. There were no significant differences between S3 (n = 452) and Evolut (n = 129) concerning in-hospital or 30-day safety outcomes. S3 was associated with significantly shorter fluoroscopy times, lower fluoroscopy Air Kerma, and higher contrast use. S3 had lower postprocedure aortic valve area (1.71 ± 0.45 vs 1.84 ± 0.50 cm2, p = 0.004), larger peak gradient at 30 days (10.7 ± 3.8 vs 7.0 ± 3.2 mm Hg, p <0.001), and lower aortic regurgitation (AR) rates postprocedure (47% vs 33%, p = 0.024) and at 30 days (50% vs 33%, p = 0.008), driven by mild AR. Device type was an independent predictor of AR postprocedure and at 30 days. Patients with ≥mild AR were more likely to have had Evolut valves (odds ratio = 2.94, p <0.001), especially in larger valves (>26 mm). Severe prosthesis-patient mismatch was higher in S3 (14.8% vs 7.9%, p <0.001). In conclusion, S3 is associated with less radiation exposure, higher contrast use, and lower incidence of AR at 30 days. Alternately, S3 has a higher transaortic gradient at 30 days, and higher levels of severe prosthesis-patient mismatch.

Living alone and cardiovascular disease outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in outpatients with coronary artery disease (CAD) living alone compared with those living with others. METHODS: The prospeCtive observational LongitudinAl RegIstry oF patients with stable coronarY artery disease (CLARIFY) included outpatients with stable CAD. CLARIFY enrolled participants in 45 countries from November 2009 to July 2010, with 5 years of follow-up. Living arrangement was documented at baseline. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) defined as CV death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. RESULTS: Among 32 367 patients, 3648 patients were living alone (11.3%). After multivariate adjustment, there were no residual differences in MACE among patients living alone compared with those living with others (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18, p=0.52); however, there was significant heterogeneity in the exposure effect by sex (Pinteraction<0.01). Specifically, men living alone were at higher risk for MACE (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.002 to 1.36, p=0.047) as opposed to women living alone (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, p=0.1), predominantly driven by a heterogeneous effect by sex on MI (Pinteraction=0.006). There was no effect modification for MACE by age group (Pinteraction=0.3), although potential varying effects by age for MI (Pinteraction=0.046) and stroke (Pinteraction=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Living alone was not associated with an independent increase in MACE, although significant sex-based differences were apparent. Men living alone may have a worse prognosis from CV disease than women; further analyses are needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN43070564.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator mHealth App for Physician Referrals and eHealth Education: ICD-TEACH Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) decision tools for implantable cardioverter defibrillator may increase physician knowledge and overall patient care. OBJECTIVE: The goals of the ICD-TEACH pilot study were to design a smartphone app or mHealth technology with a novel physician decision support algorithm, implement a direct referral mechanism for device implantation from the app, and assess its overall usability and feasibility with physicians involved in the care of patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. METHODS: The initial design and development of the mHealth or smartphone app included strategic collaboration from an information technology company and key stakeholders including arrhythmia specialists (electrophysiologists), general cardiologists, and key members of the hospital administrative team. A convenience sampling method was used to recruit general internists or cardiologists that refer to our local tertiary care center. Physicians were asked to incorporate the mHealth app in daily clinical practice and avail the decision support algorithm and direct referral feature to the arrhythmia clinic. Feasibility assessment, in the form of a physician survey, was conducted after initial mHealth app use (within 3 months) addressing the physicians' overall satisfaction with the app, compliance, and reason for noncompliance; usability assessment of the mHealth app was addressed in the physician survey for technical or hardware problems encountered while using the app and suggestions on improvement. RESULTS: A total of 17 physicians agreed to participate in the pilot study with 100% poststudy survey response rate. Physicians worked in an academic practice, which included both inpatient and ambulatory care. System Usability Scale was applied with an average score of 77 including the 17 participants (>68 points is above average). Regarding the novel physician decision support algorithm for implantable cardioverter defibrillator referral, 11% (1/9) strongly agreed and 78% (7/9) agreed that the algorithm for device eligibility was easy to use. Only 1 patient was referred through the direct referral system via the mHealth app during the pilot study of 3 months. Feasibility assessment showed that 46% (5/11) strongly agreed and 55% (6/11) agreed that the mHealth app would be utilized if integrated into an electronic medical record (EMR) where data are automatically sent to the referring arrhythmia clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The ICD-TEACH pilot study revealed high usability features of a physician decision support algorithm; however, we received only 1 direct referral through our app despite supportive feedback. A specific reason from our physician survey included the lack of integration into an EMR. Future studies should continue to systematically evaluate smartphone apps in cardiology to assess usability, feasibility, and strategies to integrate into daily workflow.

Effect of Mobile Health Interventions on the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite the strong uptake of mobile health (mhealth) technology targeted at cardiovascular care, it is still unclear if this improves adherence to therapy and patient-related outcomes in those with established cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A systematic search of English and Chinese language studies was conducted to investigate the benefit of mhealth technology for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies with 5165 patients were included in the systematic review. Patients in the mhealth group showed increased adherence to medical therapy (odds ratio [OR], 4.51; P < 0.00001), as well as increased adherence to pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy (OR, 3.86; P < 0.00001). Patients in the mhealth group showed the ability to meet recommended blood pressure targets (OR, 2.80; P < 0.001) with a trend toward the ability to meet exercise goals (OR, 2.55; P = 0.07), however, no significant difference in smoking cessation (OR, 1.42; P = 0.45) and the ability to meet lipid target levels (OR, 1.16; P = 0.29) was found. Patients in the mhealth group did not show a reduction in hospital readmission (OR, 0.93; P = 0.96), with a small number of studies showing a reduction in angina (OR, 0.23; P = 0.005), and a decrease in transient ischemic attack/stroke recurrence in those with cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.18; P < 0.0001) and a trend toward lower observed mortality rate (OR, 0.19; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The mhealth group compared with the usual care group had increased adherence to medical therapy, ability to reach blood pressure targets, exercise goals, and showed less anxiety and increased awareness of diet and exercise. There was no difference in smoking cessation, ability to meet low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets, and hospital readmission.

Multidisciplinary Heart Failure Clinics Are Associated With Lower Heart Failure Hospitalization and Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) clinics (HFCs) are an integral aspect of the strategy for community HF care. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies. We searched for candidate articles in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1990 to January 2017. RESULTS: We included 16 randomized controlled trials in the meta-analysis with 3999 patients. The HFC group had a lower incidence of the primary composite end point of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; P = 0.0003). The benefit was maintained when stratified according to non-nurse led HFCs (OR, 0.52; P = 0.003), clinics that followed-up patients ≥ 3 months (OR, 0.51; P = 0.0009), patients with mean ejection fraction ≤ 30% (OR, 0.39; P = 0.02), and ejection fraction > 30% (OR, 0.72; P = 0.02), and patients with recent hospitalization for HF (OR, 0.51; P = 0.0001). There was no benefit in patients who were seen in HFCs with limited follow-up ≤ 3 months (OR, 0.91; P = 0.69), patients with stable HF without recent hospitalization (OR, 0.95; P = 0.70), and studies published after 2008 (OR, 0.89; P = 0.31). Patients in the HFC group had lower HF hospitalization rates (OR, 0.68; P = 0.003), however, no significant difference in all-cause hospitalization (OR, 1.04; P = 0.33). There was lower all-cause mortality in the HFC group (OR, 0.71; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our analysis show a benefit of HFC to reduce HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality. This was a cumulative benefit of all randomized clinical trials that assessed the benefit of HFC, with additional analysis showing a greater benefit among patients with recent emergency room visit or hospitalization, and patients seen frequently in follow-up ≥ 3 months.

Comparison of Drug-Eluting Stents With Bare-Metal Stents for PCI of Saphenous Vein Graft Lesions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The superiority of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation over bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation in saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions is controversial, with significant heterogeneity demonstrated in the literature. METHODS: A study search was conducted from January 2003 to October 2015, and identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 35 observational studies comparing DES vs BMS in SVG interventions. Clinical endpoint data were abstracted and analyzed by combining the odds ratios (ORs) of individual studies into a pooled OR using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 39,213 patients in the DES group and 26,461 patients in the BMS group. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with DES had lower major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate (OR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.74; P<.001), lower all-cause mortality rate (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84; P<.001), lower target-vessel revascularization (TVR) rate (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86; P<.001), and lower target-lesion revascularization (TLR) rate (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.84; P<.01), with no difference in stent thrombosis (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.32; P=.58). There was no significant reduction in myocardial infarction (MI) in the DES group compared with the BMS group (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.04; P=.13). Benefits were sustained at long-term follow-up of 36 months without an increased risk of early and/or late stent thrombosis. The observed benefit for MACE was only seen in observational studies (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.75; P<.001) with no benefit in RCTs (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.20-1.40; P=.20). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that patients with DES in comparison with BMS implantation for PCI to SVG lesions had lower MACE, all-cause mortality, and TVR rates, without a significant reduction in MI and TLR.

Comparison of Dual-antiplatelet Therapy to Mono-antiplatelet Therapy After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel is common practice to reduce ischemic complications despite the lack of clinical trial evidence demonstrating superiority over mono-antiplatelet therapy (MAPT). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies that investigated DAPT vs MAPT in patients who have undergone TAVI. Outcomes of interest included both ischemic and bleeding events at 30 days and 6 months. RESULTS: Four studies met inclusion criteria-2 randomized control trials and 2 observational studies, with 286 patients in the DAPT group and 354 patients in the MAPT group. For the primary outcome of a combined end point of 30-day major stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and combined lethal and major bleeding, there was a trend toward increased harm in the DAPT group (29%) compared with the MAPT group (16%), with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.88 (P = 0.05). Secondary outcome analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between groups regarding 30-day stroke, 30-day spontaneous MI, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Patients who received DAPT had a significant increase in combined 30-day lethal and major bleeding (OR, 2.62; P = 0.008). Further analysis revealed that increased adverse events were driven by observational studies, with no difference in outcomes between groups in randomized controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: DAPT in patients who have undergone TAVI demonstrated no benefit over MAPT in reduction of ischemic events, with a trend toward increased harm because of bleeding. Future considerations should be given to MAPT with clopidogrel alone, as well as the omission of clopidogrel loading before the procedure.

Degradation of TCE, Cr(VI), sulfate, and nitrate mixtures by granular iron in flow-through columns under different microbial conditions.

Flow-through aquifer columns packed with a middle layer of granular iron (Fe0) were used to study the applicability and limitations of bio-enhanced Fe0 barriers for the treatment of contaminant mixtures in groundwater. Concentration profiles along the columns showed extensive degradation of hexavalent chromium Cr(VI), nitrate, sulfate, and trichloroethene (TCE), mainly in the Fe0 layer. One column was bioaugmented with Shevanella algae BRY, an iron-reducing bacterium that could enhance Fe0 reactivity by reductive dissolution of passivating iron oxides. This strain did not enhance Cr(VI), which was rapidly reduced by iron, leaving little room for improvement by microbial participation. Nevertheless, BRY-enhanced nitrate removal (from 15% to 80%), partly because this strain has a wide range of electron acceptors, including nitrate. Sulfate was removed (55%) only in a column that was bioaugmented with a mixed culture containing sulfate-reducing bacteria. Apparently, these bacteria used H2 (produced by Fe0 corrosion) as electron donor to respire sulfate. Most of the TCE was degraded in the zone containing Fe0 (50-70%), and bioaugmentation with BRY slightly increased the removal efficiency to about 80%. Microbial colonization of the Fe0 surface was confirmed by scanning electron microscopy.

Hypertonic saline with furosemide for the treatment of acute congestive heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Advanced congestive heart failure (CHF) therapies include intravenous inotropic agents, change in class of diuretics, and venous ultrafiltration or hemodialysis. These modalities have not been associated with improved prognosis and are limited by availability and cost. Compared to high-dose furosemide alone, concomitant hypertonic saline solution (HSS) administration has demonstrated improved clinical outcomes with good safety profile. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of HSS in patients admitted to hospital with acute CHF. RESULTS: 1032 patients treated with HSS and 1032 controls, demonstrated decreased all-cause mortality in patients treat with HSS with RR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.41-0.76,p=0.0003). 1012 patients treated with HSS and 1020 controls, demonstrated decreased heart failure hospital readmission with RR of 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.76,p=0.001). Patients treated with HSS also demonstrated decreased hospital length of stay (p=0.0002), greater weight loss (p<0.00001), and preservation of renal function (p<0.00001). CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that in patients with advanced CHF concomitant hypertonic saline administration improved weight loss, preserved renal function, and decreased length of hospitalization, mortality and heart failure rehospitalization. A future adequately powered, multi-centre, placebo controlled, randomized, double dummy, blinded trial is needed to assess the benefit of hypertonic saline in patients with renal dysfunction, in diverse patient populations, as well using a patient population on optimal current heart failure treatment. Pending further validation, there is promise for hypertonic saline as an advanced therapy for the management of acute advanced CHF.

Statins and contrast-induced acute kidney injury with coronary angiography.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced acute kidney injury is an adverse outcome resulting from radiocontrast medium exposure during coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to retrieve studies that investigated the impact of statin exposure before coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention on the development of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. The primary outcome was the development of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. We separately analyzed statin/placebo comparisons and high-/low-dose statin comparisons. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria: 11 studies with statin-naïve subjects, 2 studies with chronic statin users, and 2 studies with unspecified prior statin exposure. Statin exposure reduced the risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury relative to placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.63, P = .01) with a nonsignificant reduction in the need for hemodialysis (RR 0.25, P = .08). This benefit was also observed in high-dose versus low-dose statin trials (RR 0.46, P = .004), in statin-naïve patients (RR 0.53, P <.0001), and with all studied statins. Higher statin exposure reduced contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with acute coronary syndromes compared with placebo or low-dose statins (RR 0.49, P <.00001), with no significant benefit among patients undergoing elective procedures (RR 0.86, P = .50). Subgroup analyses confirmed the benefit of statins in patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, and those receiving >140 mL of contrast dye. CONCLUSION: Statin therapy is effective at reducing the risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury. It should thus be considered, at least on a short-term basis, for patients at increased risk of this complication.