Search

Background Aortic stenosis (AS) is the most commonly acquired valvular pathology in the western world. Aortic stenosis severity is typically evaluated with Doppler echocardiography. Evaluation of aortic gradients using standard Doppler echocardiography from the apical window may underestimate the true gradient due to misalignment of blood flow to the ultrasound beam and is often better evaluated from other imaging windows using a non-imaging continuous wave Doppler (NI-CWD) probe. Herein, we describe a unique case of AS being underestimated by dynamic acoustic shadowing from the apical window rather than beam misalignment. Case summary The patient is a Hispanic 31-year-old male with a congenital bicuspid aortic valve who underwent a balloon aortic valvuloplasty at age 13. At age 31, the patient underwent a repeat transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) that was largely unchanged from his prior TTE from 15 years prior. Notably on this TTE, there was acoustic shadowing of colour Doppler in the distal left ventricular outflow tract and aortic valve during systole. While gradients only suggested moderate AS, the degree of left ventricular hypertrophy was suspicious for more severe AS. Only by using the NI-CWD probe at the right sternal border were we able to identify very severe AS with a peak velocity of 6.5 m/s and a mean gradient of 100 mmHg. Discussion In our specific case, dynamic acoustic shadowing of the aortic valve from the apical window obscured both imaging and Doppler signals. This acoustic shadowing was not present from the right sternal border with the NI-CWD probe, leading to an over 100% increase in aortic valve peak velocity and proper correction of AS severity. This allowed for expedited care and underscores the importance of such techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A minority of geriatric hip fracture patients pursue non-operative treatment. Compared with surgical patients, non-operative patients have higher mortality rates. However, patient satisfaction following non-operative vs operative treatment has not been investigated extensively. The purpose of this study was to compare satisfaction among non-operatively vs operatively treated hip fracture patients. Methods: We identified patients aged 60+ years with proximal femur fractures treated over a 10-year period. Excluded were patients with isolated greater/lesser trochanteric fractures. Patients or relatives were asked to complete a 6-question survey about their treatment satisfaction. Results: Survey responses from 56 operative and 28 non-operative patients were recorded. Overall, 91.1% of operative and 82.1% of non-operative patients were satisfied with their treatment course (P = 0.260). However, only 71.4% of non-operative patients were satisfied with treatment option explanations vs 83.9% of operative patients (P = 0.014). While only 64.3% of non-operative respondents were satisfied with the ultimate treatment outcome (vs 85.7% of operative patients, P = 0.025), 89.3% of patients in each cohort would choose the same treatment plan again. Discussion: Our findings highlight the complexity of defining patient satisfaction, particularly in a geriatric hip fracture population. Unlike previous studies, we chose a direct approach to quantifying patient satisfaction by asking participants specifically about satisfaction with treatment outcome and the overall treatment course. Additional survey questions were then included to assess factors considered important in treatment satisfaction, such as health care provider treatment explanations, post-treatment mobility, and palliative care service involvement. Conclusions: We identified significant differences between non-operatively and operatively treated geriatric hip fracture patients regarding satisfaction with the explanation of treatment options, and ultimate treatment outcomes. There was no significant difference in overall satisfaction with the treatment course or likelihood of choosing the same treatment again. Further research investigating patient satisfaction following geriatric hip fracture treatment is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an arrhythmia characterized by disorganized atrial activity with an associated unevenly irregular ventricular response on an electrocardiogram. It is the most common sustained arrhythmia, with a lifetime risk of 25% in patients older than 40 years old. The incidence of AF increases with age and is associated with an increased risk for heart failure, stroke, adverse cardiac events, and dementia. The 2 main aims of AF treatment include anticoagulation for thromboembolism prophylaxis as well as rate vs rhythm control. The focus of this article will be on the treatment strategies in managing AF. Rate control refers to the use of atrioventricular nodal blocking medications, including beta blockers and calcium channel blockers, to maintain a goal heart rate. Rhythm control, on the other hand, refers to a treatment strategy focused on the use of antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), cardioversion, and ablation to restore and to maintain a patient in sinus rhythm. Currently, the ideal treatment strategy remains greatly debated. Thus, we hope to compare the risks and benefits of rate to rhythm control to highlight how patients with AF are managed here at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The rate of preoperative osteoporosis in lower extremity arthroplasty is 33%. The prevalence of osteoporosis in shoulder arthroplasty patients is inadequately studied. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the prevalence of osteoporosis in patients undergoing elective shoulder arthroplasty, (2) report the percentage of patients having dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) testing before surgery, and (3) determine the percentage of patients who have been prescribed osteoporosis medications within 6 months before or after surgery., Methods: This retrospective case series included all adults aged 50 years and older who underwent elective shoulder arthroplasty at a single tertiary care center over an 8-year period. National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) criteria for screening and treatment were applied., Results: Two hundred fifty-one patients met the inclusion criteria; 171 (68%) met the criteria for DEXA testing, but only 31 (12%) had this testing within 2 years preoperatively. Eighty patients (32%) met the NOF criteria for receipt of pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment, and 17/80 (21%) received a prescription for pharmacotherapy., Discussion: Two-thirds of elective shoulder arthroplasty patients meet the criteria to have bone mineral density measurement done, but less than 20% have this done. One in three elective shoulder arthroplasty patients meet the criteria to receive osteoporosis medications, but only 20% of these patients receive therapy., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)