The objective was to compare the efficacy of treatment options for right heart thrombi (RHT) in transit. All published reports between 1992 and 2013 were identified and pooled. We analyzed 328 patients with RHT and pulmonary embolism (PE). The treatments administered were none in 11 patients (3.4%), anticoagulation (AC) with heparin in 70 patients (21.3%), thrombolytics in 122 patients (37.2%), catheter-related treatments in five patients (1.5%) and surgical embolectomy in 120 patients (36.6%). The overall short-term mortality for the entire cohort was 23.2%. The mortality rate associated with no therapy was highest at 90.9%. The mortality associated with AC alone was significantly higher than surgical embolectomy or thrombolysis (37.1% vs 18.3% vs 13.7%, respectively). In univariate analysis, any therapy was better than no therapy with a favorable odds of 16.92 (95% CI 2.05-139.87) for AC, 61.76 (95% CI 7.42-513.81) for thrombolysis and 44.54 (95% CI 5.42-366.32) for surgical embolectomy. In multivariate analysis with age and hemodynamic status entered as covariates, thrombolytic therapy was better than AC with favorable odds of 4.83 (95% CI 1.52-15.36). Similarly, there was a trend in favor of surgical embolectomy with an odds of 2.61 (95% CI 0.90-7.58). The estimated probability of survival in hemodynamically unstable patients with AC, surgical embolectomy and thrombolysis was 47.7%, 70.45% and 81.5%, respectively. There was no significantly increased risk of complications with thrombolytic therapy. In conclusion, left untreated, patients with RHT and PE have very high mortality. Aggressive management with thrombolysis or surgical thrombectomy may be more effective than AC alone in the management of these patients.

Our findings suggest that the risk of 30-day stroke after TAVR is similar between the approaches and valve types. There has been a decline in stroke risk after TAVR with improvements in valve technology, patient selection, and operator experience.

No abstract

Antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and vascular death in patients who have symptomatic peripheral artery disease. However, a subset of patients who take aspirin continues to have recurrent cardiovascular events. There are few data on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease who manifest aspirin resistance. Patients with peripheral artery disease on long-term aspirin therapy (≥4 wk) were tested for aspirin responsiveness by means of the VerifyNow Aspirin Assay. The mean follow-up duration was 22.6 ± 8.3 months. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of vascular interventions (surgical or percutaneous), or of amputation or gangrene caused by vascular disease. Of the 120 patients enrolled in the study, 31 (25.8%) were aspirin-resistant and 89 (74.2%) were aspirin-responsive. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (32.3%) patients in the aspirin-resistant group and in 13 (14.6%) patients in the aspirin-responsive group (hazard ratio=2.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-5.66; =0.03). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcome of revascularization or tissue loss. By multivariate analysis, aspirin resistance and history of chronic kidney disease were the only independent predictors of long-term adverse cardiovascular events. Aspirin resistance is highly prevalent in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease and is an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular risk. Whether intervening in these patients with additional antiplatelet therapies would improve outcomes needs to be explored.

Medical directors of cardiac catheterization (CC) and electrophysiology (EP) laboratories play an important role in the selection of devices and medications available within hospital procedural areas. This may also influence the practice patterns of their colleagues. As such, payments made from industry to medical directors of CC and EP laboratories have the potential to create conflicts of interest (COIs). The National Academy of Medicine (previously the Institute of Medicine) defines a COI as an event where "an individual or institution has a secondary interest that creates a risk of undue influence on decisions or actions affecting a primary interest," 1(p26) and notes that any payment of $10 000 or more constitutes a significant COI. 1 However, to our knowledge, the extent and nature of payments to laboratory directors from top-ranking institutions has not been described previously.The Open Payments Program (OPP) mandated that biomedical industry and group-purchasing organizations report payments to physicians and hospitals. Since August 2013, information about eligible payments has been made publicly available through the OPP website. 2 We used OPP data to characterize patterns of industry payments to laboratory directors at premier cardiovascular hospitals in the United States.

No abstract

In our meta-analysis of RCT comparing TAVR and SAVR, we showed comparable risk of major stroke, all stroke and all cerebrovascular events.

No abstract