Aims Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) implantation in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction improves survival by reducing mortality secondary to arrhythmic events. Whether advanced HF patients treated with continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) derive similar benefit is controversial. Methods and results We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Scopus from inception through November 2018 for studies examining the association between ICD implantation and all-cause mortality in patients with advanced HF and CF-LVADs. Analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity and publication bias were formally assessed, using I2 and funnel plots, respectively. Eight observational studies with a total of 6416 patients (ICD group = 3450, no ICD group = 2966) met inclusion criteria. The majority of patients (84.6%) came from the two largest observational studies. There was no difference in mortality in the ICD and no ICD groups (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73–1.27, P = 0.79, I2 = 42%), and ICD implantation post-CF-LVAD was not associated with an improvement in mortality (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.48–1.57, P = 0.64, I2 = 0%). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the likelihood of transplantation (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93–1.30, P = 0.28, I2 = 26%) or non-mortality adverse events between the two groups. Conclusion Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator use was not associated with improved survival in advanced HF patients with CF-LVADs. These findings underscore the need to formally study the efficacy of ICDs in this population in a dedicated randomized controlled study.
Background In orthotopic heart transplant recipients, surveillance with endomyocardial biopsy is crucial to detect acute cellular rejection (ACR) early. ACR is a common and serious complication of transplantation with substantial morbidity and mortality. Speckle tracking echocardiography with global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment of the left ventricle has emerged as a possible noninvasive screening modality. We have conducted a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the role of GLS in diagnosing ACR. Methods The following databases were queried: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Embase. We compiled all articles evaluating changes in GLS in comparison to endomyocardial biopsy in ACR dated prior to September 2019. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by using a random effects model. In order to determine the risk of bias, we used the revised version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS‐2) tool. Results Twelve studies met inclusion criteria of which ten were chosen. These studies encompassed 511 patients and 1267 endomyocardial biopsies. There was a significant difference in GLS between patients who did and did not have ACR proven by biopsy (WMD = 2.18; 95% CI: 1.57‐2.78, P = <.001; I2 = 76%). The overall sensitivity for GLS in detecting ACR was 78% (CI: 63%‐90%, P = .123; I2 = 52.2%) while the overall specificity was 68% (CI: 50%‐83%, P = <.001; I2 = 88.3%). Conclusion Global longitudinal strain assessment of the left ventricle by speckle tracking echocardiography is useful in detecting ACR and could potentially reduce the burden of frequent endomyocardial biopsies in heart transplant recipients.
Background Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is a well‐established imaging modality used to screen patients with mild‐to‐moderate risk for coronary artery disease. In heart transplantation recipients, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a common and lethal complication. The use of DSE to detect CAV showed promising results initially, but later studies showed limitation in its use to detect CAV. It is unclear if this cohort of patients derives benefit from DSE. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Scopus from inception through March 2018 for studies examining the accuracy of DSE in correlation to coronary angiography (CA) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to detect CAV. Original studies comparing the ability of DSE to detect CAV in comparison with CA or IVUS were included. Relevant data were extracted and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic analysis was conducted to test the overall diagnostic accuracy of DSE for patients with CAV. Results Eleven studies (749 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity of DSE varied from 1.7% to 93.8%, and specificity, from 54.8% to 98.8%. Pooled sensitivity was 60.2% (95% confidence interval (CI), 33.0%–82.3%) and specificity 85.7% (95% CI, 73.8%–92.7%). DSE had an overall diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of 9.1 (95% CI, 4.6–17.8), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 4.1 (95% CI, 2.8–6.1), negative likelihood ratio (LR−) of 0.47 (95% CI: 0.23–0.73), and area under curve (AUC) of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72–0.75). Heterogeneity among studies was not statistically significant (τ2 = 0.32, Cochran's Q = 9.5, P = 0.483). Conclusion Dobutamine stress echocardiography has a limited sensitivity to detect early CAV but its specificity is much higher. There remains a need for an alternative noninvasive modality which will have both high sensitivity and high specificity for detecting CAV.
Background Cardiac arrest (CA) is a lethal condition with high public health burden and grave long-term implications. We aimed to evaluate the rate and predictors of readmission after CA Methods We used the Nationwide Readmission Database 2014 to determine patient with index admission CA by using relevant ICD-9 codes. We excluded patients <18 years and admissions in October, November, and December to allow 90 days readmission follow up. We evaluated rates and causes of 30 and 90 days readmission. We investigated disposition options for CA survivors and rates of readmissions. Multivariable analysis was done for relevant variables to demonstrated predictors of readmission. Results A total cohort of 71,780 patients suffered CA and survived to hospital discharge. Mean age was 63.9±15 years and 61.3% were males. Mean length of stay was 14.2±18.3 days, primary payer was Medicare 58%, 42.2% were discharged home, 33% to skilled nursing/intermediate care facility, 18.5% to home with home health services, 5% to short term hospital, and 0.8% left against medical advice (AMA). All-cause 30 and 90 days readmission rates were 18% and 28.9%, respectively. According to each disposition group 30/90 days readmission rates were; home 13.6/23%, facility 22/35.7%, home health 21/31.9%, short term hospital 16.8/24.1%, and 33.7/42.4% left AMA. The most common causes of readmission at 30 and 90 days were congestive heart failure and infection (11% each). CA on readmission was 1.5% at 30 and 90 days. The most common predictors of readmission were CHF odds ratio (OR) 1.3, (95% CI: 1.3–1.4; P<0.001), renal failure OR 1.7, (95% CI: 1.7–1.8; P<0.001), chronic lung disease OR 1.3, (95% CI: 1.2–1.; P<0.001), and depression OR 1.1 (95% CI: 1.1–1.2; P<0.001). Conclusion Readmissions are common at 30 and 90 days in CA survivors and are associated with high cost. CHF and infection are the most common causes of 30 and 90-day readmission, while renal failure is the strongest predictor of readmission after adjusting for unbalanced covariates. Discharge to home was the most common disposition, and had the lowest rate for readmission. Leaving AMA had the highest rate of readmission.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.