Impact of Sarcoidosis on In-hospital Outcomes Among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Nationwide Readmissions Database Analysis.

Sarcoidosis is a disease that involves multiple organs, including the cardiovascular system. While cardiac sarcoidosis has been increasingly recognized, the impact of sarcoidosis on atrial fibrillation (AF) is not well established. This study aimed to analyze the impact of sarcoidosis on in-hospital outcomes among patients who were admitted for a primary diagnosis of AF. Using the all-payer, nationally representative Nationwide Readmissions Database, our study included patients aged ≥18 years who were admitted for AF between 2017-2020. We stratified the cohort into two groups depending on the presence of sarcoidosis diagnosis. The in-hospital outcomes were assessed between the two groups via propensity score analysis. A total of 1031 (0.27%) AF patients with sarcoidosis and 387,380 (99.73%) AF patients without sarcoidosis were identified in our analysis. Our propensity score analysis of 1031 (50%) patients with AF and sarcoidosis and 1031 (50%) patients with AF but without sarcoidosis revealed comparable outcomes in early mortality (1.55% vs. 1.55%, P = 1.000), prolonged hospital stay (9.51% vs. 9.70%, P = .874), non-home discharge (7.95% vs. 9.89%, P = .108), and 30-day readmission (13.29% vs. 13.69%, P = .797) between the two groups. The cumulative cost of hospitalization was also similar in both groups ($12,632.25 vs. $12,532.63, P = .839). The in-hospital adverse event rates were comparable in both groups. Sarcoidosis is not a risk factor for poorer in-hospital outcomes following AF admission. These findings provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of the current guideline for AF management in patients with concomitant sarcoidosis and AF.

Acute myocardial infraction and pulmonary embolism in a same patient with COVID -19: a rare association.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is associated with a hypercoagulable state leading to increased incidence of thromboembolism. However, it is exceedingly rare to see presence of both arterial and venous thromboembolism simultaneously. Herein, we report an unusual presentation of a 39-year-old male with recently diagnosed COVID -19 who initially had acute myocardial infarction secondary to thrombotic occlusion of right coronary artery followed by acute pulmonary embolism. Health care providers should be aware of this uncommon yet possible co-existence of two life-threatening manifestations in order to prevent fatal consequences.

The diagnosis of cardiac arrhythmias: a prospective multi-center randomized study comparing mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry versus standard loop event monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: Ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring systems are frequently used in the outpatient evaluation of symptoms suggestive of a cardiac arrhythmia; however, they have a low yield in the identification of clinically significant but infrequent, brief, and/or intermittently symptomatic arrhythmias. The purpose of this study was to compare the relative value of a mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry system (MCOT) with a patient-activated external looping event monitor (LOOP) for symptoms thought to be due to an arrhythmia. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was a 17-center prospective clinical trial with patients randomized to either LOOP or MCOT for up to 30 days. Subjects with symptoms of syncope, presyncope, or severe palpitations who had a nondiagnostic 24-hour Holter monitor were randomized. The primary endpoint was the confirmation or exclusion of a probable arrhythmic cause of their symptoms. A total of 266 patients who completed the monitoring period were analyzed. A diagnosis was made in 88% of MCOT subjects compared with 75% of LOOP subjects (P = 0.008). In a subgroup of patients presenting with syncope or presyncope, a diagnosis was made in 89% of MCOT subjects versus 69% of LOOP subjects (P = 0.008). MCOT was superior in confirming the diagnosis of clinical significant arrhythmias, detecting such events in 55 of 134 patients (41%) compared with 19 of 132 patients (15%) in the LOOP group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MCOT provided a significantly higher yield than standard cardiac loop recorders in patients with symptoms suggestive of a significant cardiac arrhythmia.

Aortic rupture: comparison of three imaging modalities.

We report a case of a 56-year-old man with traumatic aortic rupture (TAR) sustained in a motor vehicle accident diagnosed by helical computed tomography, aortography, and transesophageal echocardiography. A large majority of patients with TAR never make it to the hospital, and for those who do, a timely diagnosis is critical for survival. We discuss the merits and pitfalls of the three imaging modalities.