Loeffler's endocarditis and hypereosinophilic syndromes are a unique group of infiltrative disorders characterized by hypereosinophilia, inflammatory thrombotic, and ultimately, fibrotic involvement of the heart leading to multiple complications including valve involvement, thromboembolic phenomena, heart failure. Clinical recognition, comprehensive laboratory and multimodality imaging diagnostic workup, and early initiation of treatment have been shown to slow down the progression and promote remission. This review addresses a detailed analysis of Loeffler's endocarditis and hypereosinophilic syndromes.

Background Antiepileptic agents are recommended to prevent early post-traumatic seizures (PTS) within seven days of injury in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). These agents are not routinely recommended for patients with mild-to-moderate TBI, defined as Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score > 8. At St. Joseph Mercy Oakland, levetiracetam (LEV) is commonly prescribed to prevent PTS. The objective of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of LEV use in patients with mild, moderate, and severe TBI. Methods This retrospective cohort study evaluated the use of LEV in adult patients admitted with TBI over a five-year period. Patients who were younger than 18 years, had a history of seizures, were transferred to a tertiary center, or succumbed to their injuries were excluded. The primary outcome was appropriateness of LEV use. Secondary outcomes included duration of LEV treatment and rate of seizures. Results Of the 448 patients evaluated, 36 patients were excluded. Of the 412 included patients, 403 (97.8%) had a non-severe TBI, defined as GCS score > 8. In patients with non-severe TBI, 153 (38%) received LEV and 94 (23.3%) received LEV for more than seven days. Additionally, 105 (26.1%) patients with non-severe TBI were discharged with a prescription for LEV despite not having a seizure during hospitalization. All six patients with non-severe TBI who experienced a seizure were receiving LEV. Conclusions Inappropriate use of LEV is common in patients admitted with non-severe TBI, with many patients continuing LEV post-discharge. With careful patient selection, patients with mild and moderate TBI likely do not need seizure prophylaxis with LEV. Education on appropriate indication and duration of LEV in patients with TBI is warranted.

A straddling thrombus within a patent foramen ovale (PFO), also known as an impending paradoxical embolism, is an infrequent event that is rarely encountered in clinical practice. This should be considered whenever there is an arterial embolism in the presence of right-sided thromboembolic disease. Symptoms are widely variable depending on the severity of thrombus and obstructive embolic events. We present a patient who arrived at the hospital with signs and symptoms consistent with a cerebrovascular disease that was ultimately diagnosed with small foci of acute ischemic cerebral infarcts, bilateral pulmonary emboli, and a straddling thrombus traversing three cardiac chambers. Treatment included PFO closure, inferior vena cava filter placement, and surgical thrombectomy with a successful outcome. Consensus for treatment of an impending paradoxical embolism in the medical literature is a subject of controversy and is our reason behind contributing this case presentation with our treatment strategy.

Importance Atrial fibrillation is the most clinically significant arrhythmia in humans when viewed both from a global and also a national perspective. In the United States, approximately 2.7‐6.1 million people are estimated to have atrial fibrillation. With the aging of the population, this prevalence is on an increasing trend and remains an obstacle to cardiovascular health despite significant advancements specific to cardiovascular disease management. Observation In this specific group of patients, healthcare utilization is a concern from the public health perspective. Unfortunately, misconceptions dominate clinical decision making; for instance, the avoidance of safe and effective anticoagulation strategies in patients at the highest risk for embolic strokes continues to be widespread in clinical practice and is often based on a skewed assessment of risk versus benefit. Also, when there are contraindications to standard interventions for atrial fibrillation, a clear and nuanced understanding of second‐ and third‐line interventions with proven benefit is often lacking. Conclusions and Relevance An individualized approach should be followed by physicians when managing atrial fibrillation in the elderly patient, taking into consideration the risk of complications, particularly the embolic stroke and the availability of treatment options for stroke prevention whether through pharmacological anticoagulation or left atrial appendage occluding devices. The following review sets out to clarify these issues.