Search

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (pLAAC) emerged as an option for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible for long-term anticoagulation. Real-world data on pLAAC's in-hospital and 30-day readmission measures are limited.Objective: We sought to report the nationwide incidence of the above outcomes using 2016 claims data.Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample for in-hospital outcomes and Nationwide Readmissions Database for readmissions. We identified hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and pLAAC procedure by using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes and compared the outcomes mentioned above between the endocardial and epicardial cohorts. Statistical analyses were performed using R 3.3.2.Results: Among 5480 pLAAC procedures (endocardial: 5145; epicardial: 335), the in-hospital mortality was 0.3%. Endocardial left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) had lower complications (8.5% vs 25.4%; P < .001) and shorter length of stay median [interquartile range] 1 [1-1] day vs 2 [1-3] days; P < .001) but higher hospitalization cost (24.13 [18.45-30.17] × 1000 dollars vs 21.21 [14.03-27.86] × 1000 dollars; P = .016). The most common complications include pericardial (endocardial vs epicardial: 3% vs 10.4%; P < .001) and renal failure (1.4% vs 6.0%; P = .004). Epicardial LAAC had higher 30-day unplanned readmissions (19.5% vs 8.3%; P = .001), with the most common reason being pericarditis and/or effusion (33.9%).Conclusion: Endocardial LAAC had lower complications and 30-day readmissions but higher hospitalization cost. Although epicardial LAAC showed higher complications, given recent improvements in its technique, and postprocedural care demonstrated a significant reduction in pericardial complications, more contemporary data comparing these outcomes are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some patients with heart failure may experience transient changes in kidney function upon transition to sacubitril/valsartan. Whether such changes portend adverse outcomes or influence long-term treatment benefits with sacubitril/valsartan continuation is unknown. This investigation aimed to evaluate the association between the occurrence of moderate estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline (>15%) after initial exposure to sacubitril/valsartan and subsequent cardiovascular outcomes and its treatment benefits in PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. In sequential run-in phases, patients were titrated to enalapril 10 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 97 mg/103 mg twice daily (in PARADIGM-HF) or valsartan 80 mg twice daily and then sacubitril/valsartan 49 mg/51 mg twice daily (in PARAGON-HF). Among randomized participants, 11% in PARADIGM-HF and 10% in PARAGON-HF experienced eGFR decline (>15%) during sacubitril/valsartan run-in. eGFR partially recovered (from nadir to postrandomization week 16) regardless of sacubitril/valsartan continuation or switch to renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) postrandomization. Initial eGFR decline was not consistently associated with clinical outcomes in either trial. Treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs RASi on primary outcomes were similar irrespective of run-in eGFR decline in PARADIGM-HF (eGFR decline, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90; and no eGFR decline, HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88; P interaction = 0.32) and PARAGON-HF (eGFR decline, rate ratio [RR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52-1.36 and no eGFR decline, RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.75-1.02, P interaction = 0.92). The treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan remained consistent across a range of eGFR declines. Moderate eGFR decline when transitioning from RASi to sacubitril/valsartan is not consistently associated with adverse outcomes, and its long-term benefits are retained in heart failure across a broad range of eGFR declines. Early eGFR changes should not deter continuation of sacubitril/valsartan or stall uptitration. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711 ; Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitors with Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure [PARADIGM-HF]; NCT01035255) [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Hemodialysis centers regularly survey arteriovenous (AV) accesses for signs of dysfunction. In this review, we synthesize the available evidence to determine to what extent proactive vascular access monitoring affects the incidence of AV access thrombosis and abandonment compared with clinical monitoring. Methods: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS) and sought references from experts, bibliographies of included trials, and articles that cited included studies. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) across studies and conducted subgroup analyses to explain heterogeneity. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity of treatment effect among trials. Results: Nine studies (1363 patients) compared a strategy of surveillance vs clinical monitoring. A vascular intervention to maintain or restore patency was provided to both groups if needed. Surveillance followed by intervention led to a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of access thrombosis (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.16; I2 = 37%) and access abandonment (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.51-1.25; I2 = 60%). Three studies (207 patients) compared the effect of vascular interventions vs observation in patients with abnormal surveillance result. Vascular interventions after an abnormal AV access surveillance led to a significant reduction of the risk of access thrombosis (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36-0.76) and a nonsignificant reduction of the risk of access abandonment (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.43-1.37). Conclusion: Very low quality evidence yielding imprecise results suggests a potentially beneficial effect of AV access surveillance followed by interventions to restore patency. This inference, however, is weak and will require randomized trials of AV access surveillance vs clinical monitoring for rejection or confirmation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: The autogenous arteriovenous access for chronic hemodialysis is recommended over the prosthetic access because of its longer lifespan. However, more than half of the United States dialysis patients receive a prosthetic access. We conducted a systematic review to summarize the best available evidence comparing the two accesses types in terms of patient-important outcomes. Methods: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and SCOPUS) and included randomized controlled trials and controlled cohort studies. We pooled data for each outcome using a random effects model to estimate the relative risk (RR) and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI). We estimated inconsistency caused by true differences between studies using the I2 statistic. Results: Eighty-three studies, of which 80 were nonrandomized, met eligibility criteria. Compared with the prosthetic access, the autogenous access was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.86; I2 = 48%, 27 studies) and access infection (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.11-0.31; I2 = 93%, 43 studies), and a nonsignificant reduction in the risk of postoperative complications (hematoma, bleeding, pseudoaneurysm and steal syndrome, RR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.16; I2 = 65%, 31 studies) and length of hospitalization (pooled weighted mean difference –3.8 days; 95% CI, –7.8 to 0.2; P = .06). The autogenous access also had better primary and secondary patency at 12 and 36 months. Conclusion: Low-quality evidence from inconsistent studies with limited protection against bias shows that autogenous access for chronic hemodialysis is superior to prosthetic access. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: This review was conducted to determine the optimal timing for referring patients with end-stage renal disease to vascular surgery for access placement. Methods: A systematic review of the electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Cochrane CENTRAL and Web of Science) was conducted through March 2007. Randomized and observational studies were eligible if they compared an early referral cohort with a late referral cohort in terms of patient-important outcomes such as death, access-related sepsis, and hospitalization related to access complications. Results: We found no studies that fulfilled eligibility criteria. Conclusion: At the present time, the optimal timing for referral to vascular surgery for vascular access placement is based on expert opinion and choices made by patients and physicians. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]