Search

Endomyocardial biopsy (EB) is the preferred procedure for post-heart transplant rejection diagnosis. The rigid bioptome technique has been used due to its greater simplicity and has been criticized for the potential risk of tricuspid regurgitation (TR). We aimed to review all the EBs performed by this technique in a tertiary center and estimate the rate of complications and/or aggravation of TR. Cross-sectional, retrospective, anterograde study. Data were collected from 729 EBs performed in 55 post-heart transplant patients with a rigid Scholten Novatome™ bioptome between September 2012 to March 2022. All EBs were performed via the right jugular vein under local anesthesia and through micro-puncture and ultrasound guidance. A total of 729 procedures had an echocardiography performed before and after the procedures. The estimate of TR was categorized as absent, minimal, mild, moderate, and severe. McNemar's chi-square test was used to analyze the degree of pre- and post-EB TR. There was a worsening enough to become moderate or severe post-biopsy TR in two (0.27%) procedures, and there was a slight change in TR from minimal to mild TR in 25 (3.42%) procedures. In 729 percutaneous EBs performed with a rigid bioptome, there was no myocardial perforation, cardiac tamponade or pneumothorax. One death occurred within 24 hours after the procedure for an unknown reason. EB using a rigid bioptome is safe and has not been associated with worsening TR in a follow-up of 729 EBs performed after cardiac transplantation. The overall complication rate, including moderate to severe TR, was 0.81%. The mortality rate was 0.14%.

Aims: Although loop diuretics are widely used to treat heart failure (HF), there is scarce contemporary data to guide diuretic adjustments in the outpatient setting., Methods and Results: In a prospective, randomized and double-blind protocol, we tested the safety and tolerability of withdrawing low-dose furosemide in stable HF outpatients at 11 HF clinics in Brazil. The trial had two blindly adjudicated co-primary outcomes: (i) symptoms assessment quantified as the area under the curve (AUC) of a dyspnoea score on a visual-analogue scale evaluated at 4 time-points (baseline, Day 15, Day 45, and Day 90) and (ii) the proportion of patients maintained without diuretic reuse during follow-up. We enrolled 188 patients (25% females; 59 ± 13 years old; left ventricular ejection fraction = 32 ± 8%) that were randomized to furosemide withdrawal (n = 95) or maintenance (n = 93). For the first co-primary endpoint, no significant difference in patients' assessment of dyspnoea was observed in the comparison of furosemide withdrawal with continuous administration [median AUC 1875 (interquartile range, IQR 383-3360) and 1541 (IQR 474-3124), respectively; P = 0.94]. For the second co-primary endpoint, 70 patients (75.3%) in the withdrawal group and 77 patients (83.7%) in the maintenance group were free of furosemide reuse during follow-up (odds ratio for additional furosemide use with withdrawal 1.69, 95% confidence interval 0.82-3.49; P = 0.16). Heart failure-related events (hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and deaths) were infrequent and similar between groups (P = 1.0)., Conclusions: Diuretic withdrawal did not result in neither increased self-perception of dyspnoea nor increased need of furosemide reuse. Diuretic discontinuation may deserve consideration in stable outpatients with no signs of fluid retention receiving optimal medical therapy., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02689180., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)