Pharmacological Treatments in Heart Failure With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with reduced ejection fraction, despite recent trials with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is). OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to estimate the aggregate therapeutic benefit of drugs for HFmrEF and HFpEF. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized trials including patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%, treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (analyzed together as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors [RASi]), beta-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, ARNI, and SGLT2i. An additive component network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and first hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); secondary outcomes were CV death, total HHF, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: The authors identified 13 studies with a total of 29,875 patients and a mean LVEF of 56.3% ± 8.7%. ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i separately, but not RASi, BB, or digoxin, reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo. The combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was the most effective (HR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.70]); this was largely explained by the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i (HR: 0.56 [95% CI 0.43-0.71]). Results were similar for CV death (HR: 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.91] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) or total HHF (HR: 0.49 [95% CI 0.33-0.71] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) alone. In a subgroup analysis, only SGLT2i had a consistent benefit among all LVEF subgroups, whereas the triple combination had the greatest benefit in HFmrEF, robust benefit in patients with LVEF 50% to 59%, and a statistically marginal benefit in patients with LVEF ≥60%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF and LVEF>40%, the quadruple combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i provides the largest reduction in the risk of CV death and HHF; driven by the robust effect of the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i. The benefit was more pronounced in HFmrEF patients.

Left Atrial Appendage Closure Outcomes in Patients With Cancer at a Single Tertiary Center.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia in patients with underlying malignancy. Patients with cancer have a higher risk of bleeding, and at the same time, carry an elevated risk of thromboembolism related to the hypercoagulable state, type of cancer, and anticancer treatment, rendering safe anticoagulation challenging in this population. Left atrial appendage closure is an alternative treatment option in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk; however, the data on patients with cancer are limited. Our study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes in patients with cancer receiving left atrial appendage closure using the WATCHMAN device. This is a prospective, single-center study comparing outcomes in 389 patients who underwent percutaneous left atrial appendage closure using the WATCHMAN device over 5 years in a single, large academic hospital in the United States. The postprocedural outcomes of mortality, stroke, and major bleeding were evaluated in patients with and without cancer. Our study included 57 patients with cancer and 332 without cancer. The baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Metastatic disease was present in 16.4% of patients, and 25% were receiving active treatment at the time of the procedure. The median follow-up time was 354 (interquartile range 85 to 790) days. There was no difference in mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 2.35, p = 0.38), major bleeding episodes (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.33, p = 0.68), and stroke (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.21, p = 0.49) at 3 years after the procedure in patients with and without cancer. There was no difference in the composite outcome (postprocedural mortality, stroke, and major bleeding) between the 2 groups (HR 1.25, CI 0.75 to 2.07, p = 0.38). Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure in patients with cancer appears to be safe and has a similar long-term risk compared with patients without cancer.

Patterns of Care and Outcomes of Ambulatory Endovascular Interventions in Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Disease.

Lower extremity endovascular intervention (LE-EVI) is gaining popularity as the primary treatment modality for patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease refractory to noninvasive management. We examined the contemporary patterns of care, regional variation, and outcomes of ambulatory LE-EVI in the United States. The National Ambulatory Surgery Sample was analyzed to identify 266,563 records with peripheral artery disease and LE-EVI between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2017. The mean age of the study cohort was 68.9 years and 40.5% were women. The majority of the endovascular interventions were performed at large (58.1%), urban teaching (64.1%), private not-for-profit (76.8%) centers, and the southern region accounted for most cases (43%). Periprocedural major adverse renal and cardiovascular events and other complications were 0.5% and 3.3%, respectively. Most patients (97.6%) were discharged home after the procedure. Age, female gender, uncontrolled hypertension, ischemic heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmia, chronic kidney disease, malnutrition, non-Medicare insurance, private for-profit, urban teaching facilities, and southern and midwest regions were associated with higher odds of major adverse renal and cardiovascular events. The mean charges per patient encounter were $56,500, with significant differences across various patient and facility characteristics. In conclusion, our study demonstrates the use, patterns of care, financial aspect, and overall safety of ambulatory LE-EVIs in a real-world setting.

Percutaneous thrombectomy in patients with intermediate- and high-risk pulmonary embolism and contraindications to thrombolytics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Catheter-directed interventions have slowly been gaining ground in the treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE), especially in patients with increased risk of bleeding. The goal of this study is to summarize the evidence for the efficacy and safety of percutaneous thrombectomy (PT) in patients with contraindications to systemic and local thrombolysis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus and the Web of Science databases for studies from inception to March 2022. We included patients with intermediate- and high-risk PE with contraindications to thrombolysis; patients who received systematic or local thrombolysis were excluded. Primary endpoint was in-hospital and 30-day mortality, with secondary outcomes based on hemodynamic and radiographic changes. Major bleeding events were assessed as a safety endpoint. Seventeen studies enrolled 455 patients, with a mean age of 58.6 years and encompassing 50.4% females. In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 4% (95% CI 3-6%) and 5% (95% CI 3-9%) for all-comers, respectively. We found a post-procedural reduction in systolic and mean pulmonary arterial pressures by 15.4 mmHg (95% CI 7-23.7) and 10.3 mmHg (95% CI 3.1-17.5) respectively. The RV/LV ratio and Miller Index were reduced by 0.42 (95% CI 0.38-46) and 7.8 (95% CI 5.2-10.5). Major bleeding events occurred in 4% (95% CI 3-6%). This is the first meta-analysis to report pooled outcomes on PT in intermediate- and high-risk PE patients without the use of systemic or local thrombolytics. The overall mortality rate is comparable to other contemporary treatments, and is an important modality particularly in those with contraindications for adjunctive thrombolytic therapy. Further studies are needed to understand the interplay of anticoagulation with PT and catheter-directed thrombolysis.

Idiopathic posterior papillary muscle rupture; a case report.

BACKGROUND: Papillary muscle rupture is a rare condition. Its clinical presentation, diagnosis and management can be very challenging for the clinician. CASE PRESENTATION: A 73-year-old woman with hypertension presented with chest pain, ST-segment changes, and elevated serum troponin levels. Coronary angiography was normal. Echocardiography revealed normal ventricular function, flail posterior mitral leaflet, and severe mitral regurgitation. She underwent emergent mitral valve replacement. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic and management strategies of this uncommon presentation are discussed.

Prothrombin complex concentrate in major bleeding associated with DOACs; an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) is frequently used as a reversal agent for major bleeding in patients on factor Xa inhibitors. Piran et al. reviewed its safety and efficacy for the first time in 2018. However, more studies have been published on the matter since then. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of this use and update this review. METHODS: We systematically searched in Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from 1/1/2018 to 6/19/2020. A random effects model meta-analysis of proportions was used to study the efficacy of PCC on major bleeding control, mortality and thrombosis incidence. RESULTS: 33 studies (n = 2568 patients), with the majority of studies being uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies, were included; atrial fibrillation was the main factor Xa inhibitors indication and approximately 62% of patients presented with intracranial hemorrhage. We estimated the pooled proportion outcomes for hemostasis (80%, CI 0.75-0.84), mortality (15%, CI 0.11-0.19) and thromboembolic adverse events (3%, CI 0.02-0.05). High versus low dose PCC did not affect hemostasis or thrombosis. Patients with ICH had higher mortality rates (22%, CI 0.13-0.32). Heterogeneity was significant (Ι2 > 50% with p < 0.05) for all pooled proportional outcomes. The quality of evidence was low given that included studies were not randomized or controlled. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the efficacy and safety of the off label use of 4F PCC in major bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors. Our data require further validation with future randomized clinical trials.

Interpretation of lymphocyte subset counts by the general pediatrician.

The immune system poses one of the greatest challenges for the scientific community. The general pediatrician should be able to screen and identify an immunodeficient patient based on certain clinical indications. Further investigation is crucial for the distinction between primary or secondary immunodeficiency as well as for between cellular and humoral immunity defects. Full blood count is the best initial laboratory test when suspecting a primary immunodeficiency, focusing on the absolute lymphocyte count, while lymphocyte subset count offers the advantage of detecting the cell type that causes the immune defect. The aim of the present review was to guide the general pediatrician in the investigation and diagnosis of an immunodeficient patient. Even though an immunodeficiency may seem a very difficult disease to diagnose, a balanced and rational way of thinking, along with the help of modern technological advances, can easily guide us in the right direction.

Unusual case of immune-related colitis.

The cancer immunotherapy field has had many promising developments in recent years. Checkpoint inhibitors are good examples of that. This new class of medications comes with a new constellation of side effects that require early recognition and management. Here we present a patient with metastatic adenocarcinoma on pembrolizumab who was admitted to the hospital for colitis. This was found to be an immune-related adverse event from pembrolizumab. We discuss our work-up and approach to the diagnosis, then highlight important treatment pearls for internal medicine physicians who are increasingly taking care of such patients.