Search

Background: Coronary allograft vasculopathy (CAV) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after heart transplantation. The use of aspirin for CAV prophylaxis has recently garnered interest as a possible therapeutic adjunct in this setting., Methods: This 2-center retrospective cohort study included 372 patients who underwent heart transplantation between January 2009 and March 2018 and were stratified according to the commencement of aspirin during their index transplant admission. The primary outcome was the development of moderate or severe CAV (International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation grade ≥2) at surveillance coronary angiography. Secondary endpoints included mortality at follow-up., Results: There were no differences in age, sex, and cause of heart failure. In the early aspirin group, the preponderant risk factors included use of ventricular assist devices, pretransplant smoking, and mild or moderate rejection. Multivariable analyses to assess for independent predictors of CAV development and mortality demonstrated that aspirin was associated with reduced mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.47, P < 0.01) and a trend toward a protective effect against the development of moderate or severe CAV (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-1.19; P = 0.08)., Conclusions: In this retrospective risk-adjusted 2-center cohort study, early aspirin administration was associated with reduced risk of death and a trend toward a protective effect against CAV development. These findings warrant validation in prospective randomized trials., Competing Interests: J.B. is supported by National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and National Heart Foundation Post Graduate Scholarships. D.K. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Due to barriers to accessing timely elective electrical cardioversion (CV) for persistent AF (PeAF), we adopted a policy of instructing patients to present directly to the Emergency Department (ED) for CV., Objective: We compare a strategy of Emergency CV (ED-CV) versus Elective CV (EL-CV) for treatment of symptomatic PeAF., Methods: Between 2014 and 7, we evaluated 150 patients undergoing CV for PeAF. ED-CV patients were provided an AF action plan for recurrent symptoms and advised to present to ED within 36 h. EL-CV patients followed standard care, including cardiologist referral and placement on an elective hospital waiting list. Follow-up was 12 months., Results: We included 75 consecutive ED-CV patients and 75 consecutive EL-CV patients. ED-CV patients had a significantly shorter median AF duration prior to CV (1 day vs 3 months; p < 0.01) and less overall AF-related symptoms at 12 months (modified EHRA symptom score ≥ 2a in 44% vs 72%; p = 0.005). Time to next AF recurrence was longer in the ED-CV group (295 ± 15 vs 245 ± 15 days; logrank p = 0.001), as was time to AF ablation referral (314 ± 13 vs 276 ± 15 days; logrank p = 0.01). Baseline LA area was similar (ED-CV 27 ± 4 cm 2 vs EL-CV 28 ± 11 cm 2 ; p = 0.67), however EL-CV had larger atria at follow-up (31 ± 8 vs 26 ± 6 cm 2 ; p = 0.01). There were no complications in either group., Conclusion: ED-CV is an acceptable strategy for symptomatic PeAF. In addition to reduced time spent in AF and improved symptom scores, this strategy may also slow progression of atrial substrate & delay onset of next AF episode., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Despite improved understanding of heart failure (HF) and advances in medical treatments, its prevalence continues to rise, and the role of implantable devices continues to evolve. While cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an accepted form of treatment for many suffering from HF, there is an ever-evolving body of evidence examining novel indications, optimization of lead placement and device programming, with several competing technologies now also on the horizon. This review aims to take a clinical perspective on the major trials, current indications, controversies and emerging aspects of CRT in the treatment of HF.

Aims: Obesity is associated with higher electrical cardioversion (ECV) failure in persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). For ease-of-use, many centers prefer patches over paddles. We assessed the optimum modality and shock vector, as well as the safety and efficacy of the Manual Pressure Augmentation (MPA) technique., Methods: Patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 30) and PeAF undergoing ECV using a biphasic defibrillator were randomized into one of four arms by modality (adhesive patches or handheld paddles) and shock vector (anteroposterior [AP] or anteroapical [AA]). If the first two shocks (100 and 200 J) failed, then patients received a 200-J shock using the alternative modality (patch or paddle). Shock vector remained unchanged. In an observational substudy, 20 patients with BMI of 35 or more, and who failed ECV at 200 J using both patches/paddles underwent a trial of MPA., Results: In total, 125 patients were randomized between July 2016 and March 2018. First or second shock success was 43 of 63 (68.2%) for patches and 56 of 62 (90.3%) for paddles (P = 0.002). There were 20 crossovers from patches to paddles (12 of 20 third shock success with paddles) and six crossovers from paddles to patches (three of six third shock success with patches). Paddles successfully cardioverted 68 of 82 patients compared with 46 of 69 using patches (82.9% vs 66.7%; P = 0.02). Shock vector did not influence first or second shock success rates (82.0% AP vs 76.6% AA; P = 0.46). MPA was successful in 16 of 20 (80%) who failed in both (patches/paddles), with 360 J required in six of seven cases., Conclusion: Routine use of adhesive patches at 200 J is inadequate in obesity. Strategies that improve success include the use of paddles, MPA, and escalation to 360 J., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)