ABSTRACT
Background: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the Mayo Clinic echocardiographic criteria for differentiating between constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy. Methods: We searched electronic databases for the date range from their inception to July 1, 2022. The index tests were the Mayo Clinic echocardiographic criteria. We performed a bivariate random-effects model to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity, each with 95% confidence interval (CI). The area under the curve of the summary receiver operator characteristic curves, with 95% CI, was also calculated. Results: We included 17 case-control studies involving 889 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CI), respectively, were as follows: ventricular septal shift, 82% (60%-94%) and 78% (65%-87%); respiratory variation in mitral inflow ≥ 14.6%, 71% (51%-85%) and 82% (66%-91%); septal e' velocity ≥ 8 cm/s, 83% (80%-87%) and 90% (83%-95%); septal e' velocity/lateral e' velocity ≥ 0.88, 74% (64%-82%) and 81% (70%-88%); and hepatic vein ratio in expiration ≥ 0.79, 73% (65%-81%) and 71% (19%-96%). The area under the curve of the summary receiver operator characteristic curves varied from 0.75 to 0.85, with overlapping CIs across index tests. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that all echocardiographic parameters from the Mayo Clinic criteria have good diagnostic accuracy for differentiating between constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy.
Contexte: Évaluation de l'exactitude diagnostique des critères échocardiographiques de la clinique Mayo visant à faire la distinction entre une péricardite constrictive et une cardiomyopathie restrictive. Méthodologie: Nous avons effectué une recherche dans des bases de données électroniques pour la période s'étendant de leur date de création au 1er juillet 2022. Les tests de concordance portaient sur les critères échocardiographiques de la clinique Mayo. Nous avons réalisé un modèle à effets aléatoires et à deux variables afin d'estimer la sensibilité et la spécificité en fonction des données regroupées, chacune avec un intervalle de confiance (IC) à 95 %. L'aire sous la courbe des courbes caractéristiques sommaires de la performance du test, avec un IC à 95 %, a également été calculée. Résultats: Nous avons inclus 17 études cas-témoins comptant 889 patients. Selon les données groupées, la sensibilité et la spécificité (IC à 95 %), respectivement, étaient les suivantes : déplacement du septum interventriculaire, 82 % (60 à 94 %) et 78 % (65 à 87 %); variation respiratoire lors du remplissage mitral ≥ 14,6 %, 71 % (51 à 85 %) et 82 % (66 à 91 %); vitesse eʹ mesurée en septal ≥ 8 cm/s, 83 % (80 à 87 %) et 90 % (83 à 95 %); rapport vitesse eʹ mesurée en septal/vitesse eʹ mesurée en latéral ≥ 0,88, 74 % (64 à 82 %) et 81 % (70 à 88 %); et rapport veineux hépatique lors de l'expiration ≥ 0,79, 73 % (65 à 81 %) et 71 % (19 à 96 %). L'aire sous la courbe des courbes caractéristiques sommaires de la performance du test variait de 0,75 à 0,85, avec des IC se chevauchant dans les tests de concordance. Conclusions: Notre méta-analyse laisse entendre que tous les paramètres échocardiographiques de la clinique Mayo ont une bonne exactitude diagnostique pour faire la distinction entre la péricardite constrictive et la cardiomyopathie restrictive.
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to assess the association between frailty and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo catheter ablation. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample database from 2017 to 2019. Adult patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of AF who underwent catheter ablation were included. Frailty was assessed using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score. The primary outcome was the presence of any complication (vascular, cardiac, respiratory, neurologic, or infectious), and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and hospital charges. A total of 21,075 weighted hospitalizations were included, and 14% were classified as intermediate or great risk of frailty. Patients with intermediate (adjusted relative risk 2.86, 95% confidence interval 2.24 to 3.67) and great (adjusted relative risk 6.68, 95% confidence interval 3.77 to 11.84) risk of frailty were associated with a greater risk of any complication than that of the group at less risk. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher among patients at intermediate risk than among those at less risk of frailty (2.6% vs 0.1%, p <0.001). Patients with great and intermediate risk had significantly longer hospital stays than did the group with less risk (median 14 vs 5 vs 2 days, p <0.001), in addition to greater total charges (median $189,072 vs $161,598 vs $130,672, p <0.001), respectively. In conclusion, frailty was associated with a greater risk of poor short-term outcomes in patients with AF who underwent catheter ablation. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score is a useful tool for identifying patients at increased risk of adverse events and could aid in preoperative optimization and postoperative management.
