Successful Surgical Extraction of an Embolized Iliac Vein Stent from the Right Heart: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Stenting of the iliac vein remains one of the therapeutic options for the treatment of May-Thurner syndrome. Embolization of peripheral venous stents due to improper technique is a feared complication with an estimated incidence of 1% to 3%. Here we describe an interesting case of an embolized iliac vein stent in the right heart that was successfully extracted via a surgical approach. CASE REPORT A 52-year-old woman with a past medical history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and iliac vein stent (16×60 mm Zilver Vena) placement for May-Thurner syndrome presented for evaluation of shortness of breath, chest pain, and dizziness. A chest X-ray was performed, revealing a large stent in the cardiac silhouette. An echocardiogram showed a dense material across the tricuspid valve extending from the right atrium into the right ventricle. A percutaneous endovascular attempt to retrieve the stent was unsuccessful and led only to partial stent retrieval. An open sternotomy approach by a cardiac surgeon revealed the embolized stent across the tricuspid valve covered by endothelial tissue. The stent was successfully extracted without any need for tricuspid valve repair or replacement, followed by an uneventful postoperative recovery. CONCLUSIONS The percutaneous approach is the preferred initial option for the extraction of embolized iliac vein stents into the heart. However, when such an approach fails, the surgical approach remains a feasible option. As reported in this case, the surgical retrieval of a stent can be done without any need for either tricuspid valve repair or replacement.

Trends and Outcomes of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is limited data on the impact of type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from January 2019 to December 2020 was queried to identify T2MI hospitalizations based on the appropriate International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision-Clinical Modification codes. Monthly trends of COVID-19 and T2MI hospitalizations were evaluated using Joinpoint regression analysis. In addition, the multivariate logistic and linear regression analysis was used to compare in-hospital mortality, coronary angiography use, and resource utilization between 2019 and 2020. RESULTS: A total of 743,535 patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of T2MI were identified in the years 2019 (n=331,180) and 2020 (n=412,355). There was an increasing trend in T2MI hospitalizations throughout the study period corresponding to the increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations in 2020. The adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality associated with T2MI hospitalizations were significantly higher in 2020 compared with 2019 (11.1% vs. 8.1%: adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 [1.13-1.26]; p<0.01). In addition, T2MI hospitalizations were associated with lower odds of coronary angiography and higher total hospitalization charges, with no difference in the length of stay in 2020 compared with 2019. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant increase in T2MI hospitalizations with higher in-hospital mortality, total hospitalization costs, and lower coronary angiography use during the early COVID-19 pandemic corresponding to the trends in the rise of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Further research into the factors associated with increased mortality can increase our preparedness for future pandemics.

Subclavian and Axillary Vein Access Versus Cephalic Vein Cutdown for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Implantation: A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transvenous access is a fundamental step during implantation of CIEDs. However, the preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate, and the decision depends on patient characteristics and operator experience. METHODS: A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian vein puncture (SVP) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) versus cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and various scientific conferences from inception to July 1, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were eligible that included 35,722 patients (SVP, n = 18,009; AVP, n = 409; and CVC, n = 17,304). Compared with CVC, SVP was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (RR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.95 to 8.06) and device/lead failure (RR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in these outcomes compared with AVP. Acute procedural success was significantly higher with SVP compared with CVC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53). There was no significant difference in other complications such as pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, or pericardial effusion between SVP or AVP compared with CVC. CONCLUSIONS: CVC was associated with a lower risk of pneumothorax and lead failure compared with SVP. AVP and CVC are both effective approaches for CIED lead implantation and offer the potential to avoid the complications usually observed with traditional SVP.