Search

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, racial disparities in the utilization of TAVR persist. This meta-analysis attempts to determine whether the prevalence of adverse outcomes (procedure-related complications) represent barriers to the use of TAVR among African Americans (AA). The TAVR cohort consisted of 89.6% Caucasian (C) and 4.7% AA, while the SAVR cohort included 86.9% C and 6.4% AA. The utilization rate (UR) of TAVR was 1.48 and.35 among C and AA, respectively, while the UR of SAVR was 1.44 and.48 among C and AA, respectively. Following TAVR, for AA the odds ratio (OR) was greater for stroke (OR = 1.22, P =.02) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) (OR = 1.57, P <.001) and lower for undergoing the insertion of a permanent pacemaker (OR =.81, P <.001). While there was a significant difference between C and AA in TAVR and SAVR utilization, outcomes between groups following TAVR are comparable; therefore, adverse outcomes do not appear to be a barrier to the use of TAVR among eligible AA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The superiority of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) is well-established, but data regarding DES use in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as a function of race is limited. Our goal was to examine stent utilization patterns and disparities based on race, sex, and insurance status in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The National Inpatient Sample database was used to retrospectively compare DES vs BMS use in patients admitted with STEMI from 2009 to 2018. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the independent predictors of DES use. DES utilization increased significantly from 62.8% in 2009 to 94.0% in 2018. However, African Americans were less likely to receive a DES (odds ratio [OR].82, 95% confidence interval [CI].77–.87) compared with Caucasians. Women were more likely to undergo DES implantation (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05–1.10). Patients insured by Medicaid (OR.84, 95% CI.80–.89) and those classified as Self-pay (OR.63, 95% CI.61–.66) were less likely to undergo DES implantation compared to those with private insurance (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.29–1.38). Disparities based on race and insurance status continue to persist despite a significant increase in DES utilization in STEMI patients across the identified subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Antibiotic use for cardiovascular implantable devices (CIED) prophylaxis is well-accepted despite a paucity of data. Pre-procedural prophylaxis lowers the rate of CIED infections; however, data is lacking for intra- or post-procedural antibiotic use. Antibiotic-eluting envelopes (ENVELOPE) [TYRX®TM] have been shown to reduce post-procedural infections. Understanding implanter practices may provide insight as to the need for antibiotic stewardship. The purpose of this survey was to assess the practices of implanters nationally. A survey was completed by 150 implanters across the US. Participants were board certificated, implanters of CIEDs, with varying experience (1–25 years), in various hospital settings. Of the respondents, 97% reported routine use of systemic antibiotics pre-operatively. About two-thirds of implanters continue systemic antibiotics post-operatively, with half continuing antibiotics for >24 h; 83% of implanters add antibiotic to saline for the purpose of irrigating the wound; 55% routinely use ENVELOPE on approximately 38% of patients. Common reasons cited for ENVELOPE use were infection concerns, significant risk factors, prior device infection, and immunosuppressed status. Two-thirds of respondents use systemic antibiotics during generator changes, with >50% continuing antibiotics for >24 h. This study suggests wide variations in practice among implanters. Additional attention to existing guidelines and evidence regarding appropriate use of ENVELOPE is still needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients infected with novel coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) can present with a variety of arrhythmias. We report an unusual case of reversible complete heart block (CHB) in the setting of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). A 23‐year‐old male with a history of Hodgkin's Lymphoma presented with dizziness and syncope. He was found to be in CHB associated with hypotension requiring a transvenous pacemaker. Methylprednisolone and remdesivir were started with rapid resolution of the CHB. Further study is needed to determine the mechanism of CHB in COVID‐19. This case underscores the importance of including COVID‐19 in one's differential diagnosis for acute CHB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights a 69-year-old woman with dyspnea, presenting with pleural plaques linked to asbestos exposure, developing constrictive pericarditis due to asbestosis, leading to a pericardiectomy with subsequent positive progress at a 2-year follow-up.

Introduction: Automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (AICDs) for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death have become standard care for patients with systolic heart failure (sHF) and ejection fraction ≤35%. While the prevalence of sHF and rates of hospitalization are higher in men, one would expect equivalent rates of implantation in women., Methods: We used the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2009 to 2018 to identify patient visits with sHF and AICD implantation. The comorbidities and outcomes were compared based on gender., Results: There were 15,247,854 inpatient admissions for sHF, of which 60.3% were males (95% CI: 60.1%-60.4%) and 39.8% females (95% CI: 39.7%-39.9%). Approximately 2% of patients (294,726) underwent the insertion of an AICD for primary prevention: 72.3% males (95% CI: 71.9%-72.7%) and 27.72% females (95% CI: 27.3%-28.1%). There was no significant difference in age (p = 0.29), length of stay (p = 0.09), and inpatient mortality (p = 0.18)., Conclusion: In this study, women accounted for approximately 40% of patients admitted with the diagnosis of sHF; however, they accounted for less than 30% of patients who underwent the insertion of an AICD. Further research is needed to better understand this gender disparity and identify reasons for the lower rates of AICD placement in women., (© 2024 S. Karger AG, Basel.)