Prevalence and Outcomes of Patients With Discordant High-Gradient Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting prognostic results have been reported in patients with discordant high-gradient aortic stenosis ([DHG-AS] the combination of a mean pressure gradient ≥40 mm Hg and an aortic valve area [AVA] >1 cm2). Moreover, existing studies only included selected patients without concomitant aortic regurgitation. OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed the prevalence and survival of patients presenting with DHG-AS in an unselected group of consecutive patients presenting to the echocardiography laboratory of a tertiary referral center. METHODS: A total of 3,547 adult patients with AVA ≤1.5 cm2 and peak aortic jet velocity ≥2.5 m/s or mean gradient ≥25 mm Hg who presented between 2005 and 2015 were included. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic data, and, when available, aortic valve calcium (AVC) score were collected in an institutional database, with subsequent retrospective analysis. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality during follow-up. RESULTS: DHG-AS was observed in 163 patients (11.6% of patients with a high gradient). After adjustment for potential confounders, overall mortality rate of patients with DHG-AS was similar to that of patients with concordant severe aortic stenosis (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.66-1.44]; P = 0.91), and patients with discordant low-gradient aortic stenosis (HR: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.58-1.26]; P = 0.42), and higher than concordant moderate aortic stenosis (HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.36-0.81]; P = 0.003). After adjustment for aortic velocities, aortic regurgitation had no significant impact on survival. AVC was higher than in patients with concordant moderate aortic stenosis and discordant low-gradient aortic stenosis, and not significantly different from that of concordant severe aortic stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: DHG-AS is not uncommon. Whereas AVA >1.0 cm2 is often seen as moderate aortic stenosis, a high-pressure gradient conveys a poor prognosis, whatever the AVA and the severity of concomitant aortic regurgitation.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants who have experienced procedural pain in the neonatal intensive care unit: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review will assess the association between painful procedures performed on preterm infants while hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit and short-, mid-, and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. INTRODUCTION: Preterm infants hospitalized in the neonatal unit undergo many painful procedures. The repetition of these painful procedures in a preterm infant with an immature nervous system can have consequences for their neurodevelopment. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Prospective and retrospective observational study designs will be included in this review. Studies of preterm infants (less than 37 weeks of gestation) hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit who have undergone painful procedures, with or without skin breaking, will be considered for inclusion in this review. Our main variable will be neurodevelopment, measured in the short, medium, and long term. METHODS: A comprehensive database search will be undertaken in CINAHL, PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will limit the search to articles published in English or French. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal will be conducted by two independent reviewers. If possible, meta-analysis will be performed; otherwise the results will be presented by descriptive synthesis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020189762.

Effectiveness of interventions on early neurodevelopment of preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As preterm infants' neurodevelopment is shaped by NICU-related factors during their hospitalization, it is essential to evaluate which interventions are more beneficial for their neurodevelopment at this specific time. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions initiated during NICU hospitalization on preterm infants' early neurodevelopment during their hospitalization and up to two weeks corrected age (CA). METHODS: This systematic review referred to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017047072). We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from 2002 to February 2020 and included randomized controlled/clinical trials conducted with preterm infants born between 24 and 366/7 weeks of gestation. All types of interventions instigated during NICU hospitalization were included. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, assessment of risks of bias and quality of evidence. RESULTS: Findings of 12 studies involving 901 preterm infants were synthesized. We combined three studies in a meta-analysis showing that compared to standard care, the NIDCAP intervention is effective in improving preterm infants' neurobehavioral and neurological development at two weeks CA. We also combined two other studies in a meta-analysis indicating that parental participation did not significantly improve preterm infants' neurobehavioral development during NICU hospitalization. For all other interventions (i.e., developmental care, sensory stimulation, music and physical therapy), the synthesis of results shows that compared to standard care or other types of comparators, the effectiveness was either controversial or partially effective. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of evidence was rated low to very low. Future studies are needed to identify interventions that are the most effective in promoting preterm infants' early neurodevelopment during NICU hospitalization or close to term age. Interventions should be appropriately designed to allow comparison with previous studies and a combination of different instruments could provide a more global assessment of preterm infants' neurodevelopment and thus allow for comparisons across studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42017047072 .