Contemporary Practice and Optimising Referral Pathways for Implantable Cardiac Monitoring for Atrial Fibrillation after Cryptogenic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnosing atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients following Cryptogenic stroke (CS) has therapeutic implications that can reduce the risk of further strokes. However, it's indolent and paroxysmal nature makes this challenging. Prolonged rhythm monitoring using implantable loop recorders (ILRs) can significantly increase the AF detection rate in the clinical trial paradigm. Whether this can be translated to real-world practice is unknown. An evaluation of referral pathways, workload and real-world efficacy may help select patients and inform service development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients with CS referred to a tertiary electrophysiology referral hospital for ILR implantation between February 2017 and October 2020 for AF detection was conducted. The electronic health record was used to determine demographic and mortality data. Remote monitoring was used to identify AF occurrence. RESULTS: 107 patients were included. The average time from stroke to ILR implantation was 10.5 (5.9-18.6) months. The average monitoring duration was 18.1 ± 11.2 months with 15 (14.0%) patients diagnosed with AF and commenced on anticoagulation. One diagnosis were made in the first 30 days whereas 11 (73%) were made within 12 months. Paroxysmal AF episodes ranged from 6 min to 13 h. Patients with CHA2DS2-VASc >3 were more likely to have AF (20.3% vs 4.7%, p = 0.02). Age was independently associated with AF detection after multi-variate regression. 352 ± 1171 unique events were recorded per patient, 75% of which were for suspected AF. External manufacturer-led triage of transmissions reduced transmission volume by 33%. CONCLUSIONS: ILR-based AF detection rate was high among referred CS patients, despite implantation occurring relatively late. Older patients may be less likely to be referred despite positive correlation between age and AF detection. Although recording algorithms and external triage reduced transmission volume, specialist analysis was required to manage the ILR event burden.

The Association of ANRIL With Coronary Artery Disease And Aortic Aneurysms, How Far Does The Gene Desert Go?

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic aneurysms (AA) are 2 cardiovascular diseases that share a multifactorial aetiology. The influence of family history and genetics on the 2 diseases separately and in association is well known, but poorly elucidated. This comprehensive review aims to examine the current literature on the gene ANRIL (antisense non-coding RNA in the INK4 locus) and its associations with CAD and AA. METHODS: A database search on OVID, PubMed and Cochrane to identify articles concerning single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with ANRIL and their respective incidences of, and impact on, CAD and AA across populations. RESULTS: Cohort studies across various ethnicities reveal that various ANRIL SNPs are significantly associated separately with CAD (rs1333040, rs1333049 and rs2383207) and AA (rs564398, rs10757278 and rs1333049), and that these SNPs are present in significant proportions of the population. SNP rs1333049 is significantly associated with both diseases, but is positively correlated with AAA and negatively correlated with CAD. This review further outlines several pathophysiological links via endothelial and adventitial cells, vascular smooth muscle cells and sense gene interaction, which may explain these genetic associations identified. CONCLUSION: Given the associations uncovered between ANRIL polymorphisms and CAD and AA, as well as the molecular mechanisms which may explain the underlying pathophysiology, ANRIL appears to be strongly linked with both diseases. ANRIL may hence have a future application in screening normal patients and risk stratifying patients with both diseases. Its role in linking the 2 diseases is yet unclear, warranting further studies.

Short- and long-term outcomes of aortic root-sparing repair and replacement in acute type A aortic dissection repair.

Acute type A aortic dissection is a surgical emergency with a high mortality rate if left untreated. Management of the aortic root in this setting constitutes an intricate decision-making framework, further complicated by the emergent nature of the dissection. There exists much controversy regarding pursuit of the aggressive aortic root replacement versus a conservative root-sparing repair, alongside considerations for valve-sparing root replacement. In this review, we critically appraise the current controversy in the literature considering the fate of the aortic root, discussing the aforementioned root interventions for which provides better outcomes for mortality and risk of re-intervention. Literature search was performed using electronic database through PubMed, Google scholar, and Embase focussing on studies reporting outcomes and re-intervention rates for these approaches. Limited by the heterogeneity in surgical strategy, with most studies being single-centred retrospective experiences, further fuel this ongoing debate. The literature reveals rather contrasting results whilst comparing root-sparing repair, versus the extensive root replacement; whilst some studies report no statistically significant difference, others show one superior over the other. There is greater consensus when considering risk of re-operation, with studies showing higher rates of re-operation in root-sparing group compared to replacement; however, many others show no statistically significant difference. In conclusion, the conflicting outcomes reported in the literature, with their inherent limitations, results in the current inability to reach a definitive answer. There remains support in the current literature for both approaches with much of the decision-making being surgeon-bound with many significant influencing factors on a case-by-case basis.

Update on graft infections in thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery.

The incidence of an aortic graft infection following the repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, is a rare yet insidious complication which requires prompt recognition and management. The decision-making framework for management encompasses the choice or antimicrobial therapy alone versus pursuing surgical intervention, which can then also lead to considering the potential for allografts. The current literature on the matter is heavily burdened by limitations of the reported retrospective experiences consisting of small patient cohorts. Studies have reported the favored approach of surgical intervention, although statistical significance is not reached. There is a clear recognized impact that the event surrounding the initial repair has on the occurrence of graft infection itself; with emergency repairs, and incidence of nosocomial infection being associated with higher rates of graft infection. We must consider the influencers of this ominous complications, which go back to the perioperative events itself, whether the initial intervention was elective or an emergency, the impact of nosocomial infections, the choice of open versus endovascular for initial repair. Only with the appropriate management strategy that encompasses all these factors, will allow the best treatment to be provided for patients. A sound understanding and appreciation for the aforementioned can allow the stratification of the risk associated with the occurrence of an aortic graft infection, leading to surveillance opportunities to provide the crucial ability to rapidly recognize this complication.