The Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement-Conduction Study: The Value of the His-Ventricular Interval in Risk Stratification for Post-TAVR Atrioventricular-Block.

Background: There is no clear consensus regarding the optimal risk stratification of high-degree atrioventricular block (HDAVB) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods: This prospective study sought to determine the utility of the pre- and post-TAVR His-ventricular (HV) interval in the risk stratification of post-TAVR HDAVB. One hundred twenty-one patients underwent an electrophysiology study before and after TAVR. The primary outcome was HDAVB requiring pacemaker implantation within 30 days post-TAVR. A separate retrospective cohort was analyzed to determine the postoperative interval at which the risk of HDAVB is reduced to <5%. Results: HDAVB occurred in 12 (10%) patients. Baseline right bundle branch block (RBBB) (odds ratio [OR]: 13.6), implant depth >4 mm (OR: 3.9), use of mechanically- or self-expanding valves (OR: 6.3), and post-TAVR HV > 65 â€‹ms (OR: 4.9) were associated with increased risk of HDAVB, whereas PR intervals and pre-TAVR HV were not. In patients without baseline RBBB or new persistent left bundle branch block (LBBB), not one patient with post-TAVR HV < 65 â€‹ms developed HDAVB. In the separate retrospective cohort (N = 1049), the risk of HDAVB is reduced (<5%) on postoperative days 4 and 3 in patients with pre-TAVR RBBB and post-TAVR persistent LBBB, respectively. Conclusions: Baseline RBBB, new persistent LBBB, implant depth >4 mm, and a post-TAVR HV ≥ 65 â€‹ms were associated with a higher risk of post-TAVR HDAVB, whereas an HV ≤ 65 â€‹ms was associated with a lower risk. The pre-TAVR HV was not associated with our outcome, and the delta HV did not have practical incremental prognostic value. Among those without pre-TAVR RBBB or post-TAVR persistent LBBB, no patients with post-TAVR HV < 65 â€‹ms developed HDAVB.

Rapid Acute Coronary Syndrome Evaluation Over One Hour With High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin I: A United States-Based Stepped-Wedge, Randomized Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The real-world effectiveness and safety of a 0/1-hour accelerated protocol using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) to exclude myocardial infarction (MI) compared to routine care in the United States is uncertain. The objective was to compare a 0/1-hour accelerated protocol for evaluation of MI to a 0/3-hour standard care protocol. METHODS: The RACE-IT trial was a stepped-wedge, randomized trial across 9 emergency departments (EDs) that enrolled 32,609 patients evaluated for possible MI from July 2020 through April 2021. Patients undergoing high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing with concentrations less than or equal to 99th percentile were included. Patients who had MI excluded by the 0/1-hour protocol could be discharged from the ED. Patients in the standard care protocol had 0- and 3-hour troponin testing and application of a modified HEART score to be eligible for discharge. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients discharged from the ED without 30-day death or MI. RESULTS: There were 13,505 and 19,104 patients evaluated in the standard care and accelerated protocol groups, respectively, of whom 19,152 (58.7%) were discharged directly from the ED. There was no significant difference in safe discharges between standard care and the accelerated protocol (59.5% vs 57.8%; adjusted odds ratio (aOR)=1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95 to 1.16). At 30 days, there were 90 deaths or MIs with 38 (0.4%) in the standard care group and 52 (0.4%) in the accelerated protocol group (aOR=0.84, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.68). CONCLUSION: A 0/1-hour accelerated protocol using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I did not lead to more safe ED discharges compared with standard care.

Elevated COVID19 mortality risk in detroit area hospitals among patients from census tracts with extreme socioeconomic vulnerability.

BACKGROUND: the incidence of novel coronavirus disease (COVID19) is elevated in areas with heightened socioeconomic vulnerability. Early reports from US hospitals also implicated social disadvantage and chronic disease history as COVID19 mortality risk factors. However, the relationship between race and COVID19 mortality remains unclear. METHODS: we examined in-hospital COVID19 mortality risk factors in a multi-hospital tertiary health care system that serves greater Detroit, Michigan, a predominantly African American city with high rates of poverty and chronic disease. Consecutive adult patients who presented to emergency departments and tested positive for COVID19 from 3/11/2020 through 4/18/2020 were included. Using log-binomial regression, we assessed the relationship between in-hospital mortality and residence in census tracts that were flagged for extreme socioeconomic vulnerability, patient-level demographics, and clinical comorbidities. FINDINGS: a total of 1,015 adults tested positive for COVID19 during the study period; 80% identified as Black people, 52% were male and 53% were ≥ 65 years of age. The median body mass index was 30•4 and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 4. Patients from census tracts that were flagged for vulnerability related to socioeconomic status had a higher mortality rate than their peers who resided in less vulnerable census tracts (ß 0.26, standard error (SE) 0.11, degrees of freedom (df) 378, t-value (t) 2.27, exp(ß) 1.29, p-value 0.02). Adjustment for age category, Black race, sex and/or the Charlson Comorbidity Index score category reduced the magnitude of association by less than 10% [exp(ß) 1.29 vs. 1.21]. Black race [p = 0.38] and sex [p = 0.62] were not associated with mortality in this sample. INTERPRETATION: people who lived in areas flagged for extreme socioeconomic vulnerability had elevated mortality risk in our predominantly African-American cohort of COVID19 patients who were able to seek hospital care during the so-called 'first wave' of the pandemic. By contrast, Black race was not associated with mortality in our sample.