Intermediate pressure-normalized principal wall strain values are associated with increased abdominal aortic aneurysmal growth rates.

Introduction: Current abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) assessment relies on analysis of AAA diameter and growth rate. However, evidence demonstrates that AAA pathology varies among patients and morphometric analysis alone is insufficient to precisely predict individual rupture risk. Biomechanical parameters, such as pressure-normalized AAA principal wall strain (ερ+¯/PP, %/mmHg), can provide useful information for AAA assessment. Therefore, this study utilized a previously validated ultrasound elastography (USE) technique to correlate ερ+¯/PP with the current AAA assessment methods of maximal diameter and growth rate. Methods: Our USE algorithm utilizes a finite element mesh, overlaid a 2D cross-sectional view of the user-defined AAA wall, at the location of maximum diameter, to track two-dimensional, frame-to-frame displacements over a full cardiac cycle, using a custom image registration algorithm to produce ερ+¯/PP. This metric was compared between patients with healthy aortas and AAAs (≥3 cm) and compared between small and large AAAs (≥5 cm). AAAs were then separated into terciles based on ερ+¯/PP values to further assess differences in our metric across maximal diameter and prospective growth rate. Non-parametric tests of hypotheses were used to assess statistical significance as appropriate. Results: USE analysis was conducted on 129 patients, 16 healthy aortas and 113 AAAs, of which 86 were classified as small AAAs and 27 as large. Non-aneurysmal aortas showed higher ερ+¯/PP compared to AAAs (0.044 ± 0.015 vs. 0.034 ± 0.017%/mmHg, p = 0.01) indicating AAA walls to be stiffer. Small and large AAAs showed no difference in ερ+¯/PP. When divided into terciles based on ερ+¯/PP cutoffs of 0.0251 and 0.038%/mmHg, there was no difference in AAA diameter. There was a statistically significant difference in prospective growth rate between the intermediate tercile and the outer two terciles (1.46 ± 2.48 vs. 3.59 ± 3.83 vs. 1.78 ± 1.64 mm/yr, p = 0.014). Discussion: There was no correlation between AAA diameter and ερ+¯/PP, indicating biomechanical markers of AAA pathology are likely independent of diameter. AAAs in the intermediate tercile of ερ+¯/PP values were found to have nearly double the growth rates than the highest or lowest tercile, indicating an intermediate range of ερ+¯/PP values for which patients are at risk for increased AAA expansion, likely necessitating more frequent imaging follow-up.

Management Challenges in Patients Younger Than 65 Years With Severe Aortic Valve Disease: A Review.

Importance: The management of aortic valve disease, including aortic stenosis and aortic regurgitation (AR), in younger adult patients (age <65 years) is complex, and the optimal strategy is often unclear, contingent on multiple anatomic and holistic factors. Observations: Traditional surgical approaches carry significant considerations, including compulsory lifelong anticoagulation for patients who receive a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the risk of structural valvular deterioration and need for subsequent valve intervention in those who receive a bioprosthetic AVR. These factors are magnified in young adults who are considering pregnancy, for whom issues of anticoagulation and valve longevity are heightened. The Ross procedure has emerged as a promising alternative; however, its adoption is limited to highly specialized centers. Valve repair is an option for selected patients with AR. These treatment options offer varying degrees of durability and are associated with different risks and complications, especially for younger adult patients. Patient-centered care from a multidisciplinary valve team allows for discussion of the optimal timing of intervention and the advantages and disadvantages of the various treatment options. Conclusions and Relevance: The management of severe aortic valve disease in adults younger than 65 years is complex, and there are numerous considerations with each management decision. While mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR have historically been the standards of care, other options are emerging for selected patients but are not yet generalizable beyond specialized surgical centers. A detailed discussion by members of the multidisciplinary heart team and the patient is an integral part of the shared decision-making process.

Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy in Heart Failure with Recovered Ejection Fraction.

Given recent advances in both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies for improving outcomes related to chronic systolic heart failure, heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) is now recognized as a distinct clinical entity with increasing prevalence. In many patients who once had an indication for active implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy, questions remain regarding the usefulness of this primary prevention strategy to protect against syncope and cardiac arrest after they have achieved myocardial recovery. Early, small studies provide convincing evidence for continued guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in segments of the HFrecEF population to promote persistent left ventricular myocardial recovery. Retrospective data suggest that the risk of sudden cardiac death is lower, but still present, in HFrecEF as compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction, with reports of up to 5 appropriate ICD therapies delivered per 100 patient-years. The usefulness of continued ICD therapy is weighed against the unfavorable effects of this strategy, which include a cumulative risk of infection, inappropriate discharge, and patient-level anxiety. Historically, many surrogate measures for risk stratification have been explored, but few have demonstrated efficacy and widespread availability. We found that the available data to inform decisions surrounding the continued use of active ICD therapies in this population are incomplete, and more advanced tools such as genetic testing, evaluation of high-risk structural cardiomyopathies (such as noncompaction), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging have emerged as vital in risk stratification. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making to evaluate the appropriateness of active ICD therapy for any given individual. In this article, we explore the definition of HFrecEF, data underlying continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients who have achieved left ventricular ejection fraction recovery, the benefits and risks of active ICD therapy, and surrogate measures that may have a role in risk stratification.

Management of systemic fungal infections in the presence of a cardiac implantable electronic device: A systematic review.

Evidence to inform the management of systemic fungal infections in the setting of a cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED), such as a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, is scant and limited to case reports and series. The available literature suggests high morbidity and mortality. To better characterize the shared experience of these cases and their outcomes, we performed a systematic review. We investigated all published reports of systemic fungal infections-fungemia and fungal vegetative disease-in the context of CIED, drawing from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, inclusive of patients who received treatment between January 2000 and May 2020. Exclusion criteria included presence of ventricular assist device and concurrent bacteremia, bacterial endocarditis, bacterial vegetative infection, or viremia. Among 6261 screened articles, 48 cases from 41 individual studies were identified. Candida and Aspergillus species were the most commonly isolated fungi. There was significant heterogeneity in antifungal medication selection and duration. CIED extraction-either transvenous or surgical-was associated with increased survival to hospital discharge (92%) and clinical recovery at latest follow-up (81%), compared to cases where CIED extraction was deferred (56% and 40%, respectively). Importantly, there were no prospective data, and the data were limited to individual case reports and one small case series. In summary, CIED extraction is associated with improved fungal clearance and patient survival. Reported antifungal regimens are heterogeneous and nonuniform. Prospective studies are needed to verify these results and define optimal antifungal regimens.

Lower socioeconomic status is associated with increased long-term mortality after sudden cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Determinants of long-term survival after sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) are not fully elucidated. We investigated the impact of patients' socioeconomic status (SES) on long-term mortality in SCA survivors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between SES, as estimated by median household income by zip code of residence, and long-term survival after SCA. METHODS: We analyzed the electronic medical records of patients who presented to our institution with SCA between 2000 and 2012 and were discharged alive. Patients were stratified into quartiles by median household income of their home zip code. Baseline characteristics of patients were compared by income quartiles. The impact of SES on mortality was assessed using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model incorporating all unbalanced covariates. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 1420 patients (mean age of 62 years; 41% men; 82% white). Over a 3.6-year median follow-up, 47% of patients died. After adjusting for unbalanced baseline covariates, patients in the poorest income quartile had a 25% increase in their risk of death compared to other SCA survivors (hazard ratios = 1.25, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.56, P = .046). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, lower SES is an independent predictor of long-term mortality in survivors of SCA. Designing interventions to improve survival after SCA requires attention to patients' social and economic factors.

Outcomes for critical limb ischemia are driven by lower extremity revascularization volume, not distance to hospital.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify relationships among geographic access to care, vascular procedure volume, limb preservation, and survival in patients diagnosed with critical limb ischemia (CLI). METHODS: Using New York State administrative data from 2000 to 2013, we identified a patient's first presentation with CLI defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis and procedure codes. Distance from the patient's home to the index hospital was calculated using the centroids of the respective ZIP codes. A multivariable logistic regression model was employed to estimate the impact of distance, major lower extremity amputation (LEA) volume, and lower extremity revascularization (LER) volume on major amputation and 30-day mortality. Volumes and distances were analyzed in quintiles. The farthest distance quintile and the highest procedure volume quintiles were used as references for generating odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: There were 49,576 patients identified with an initial presentation of CLI. The median age was 73 years, 35,829 (73.2%) had Medicare as a primary insurer, 11,395 (23.0%) had a major amputation, and 4249 (8.6%) died within 30 days of admission. Patients in the closest distance quintile were more likely to undergo amputation (OR, 1.53 [1.39-1.68]; P < .0001). Patients who visited hospitals in the lowest LER volume quintile with at least one procedure per year faced higher 30-day mortality rates (OR, 2.05 [1.67-2.50]; P < .0001) and greater odds of amputation (OR, 9.94 [8.5-11.63]; P < .0001). Patients who visited hospitals in the lowest LEA volume quintile had lower odds of 30-day mortality (OR, 0.66 [0.50-0.87]; P = .0033) and lower odds of amputation (OR, 0.180 [0.142-0.227]; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of major amputation are inversely associated with distance from the index hospital, whereas rates of both major amputation and mortality are inversely associated with LER volume. Rates of major amputation and mortality are directly associated with LEA volume. We believe that unless it is otherwise contraindicated, these data support consideration for selective referral of CLI patients to high-volume centers for LER regardless of distance. Within the context of value-based health care delivery, policy supporting regionalization of CLI care into centers of excellence may improve outcomes for these patients.