To determine whether clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for acute kidney injury (AKI) would enhance patient outcomes in terms of mortality, dialysis, and acute kidney damage progression.
Background: Functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) is associated with poor prognosis, however the determinants of FMR progression are not well understood. We aimed to determine clinical and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) factors associated with FMR progression in patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) who underwent baseline and follow-up echocardiography. Methods: NICM patients undergoing CMR between 12/2002-12/2017 with baseline (within 90 days of CMR) and follow-up echocardiography were evaluated. Progressive FMR was assessed by echocardiography based on reported FMR severity (none, mild, moderate, moderate-severe, severe). Associations between clinical and CMR parameters (left ventricular and left atrial (LA) size and function, late gadolinium enhancement, and mitral valve (MV) geometry quantification) and progressive FMR were assessed by univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression. Results: Amongst 311 NICM patients (age 53±15.7 years, female 121 (38.9%)). A total of 17 patients (5.5%) had at least 1-grade of deterioration in FMR, while 66 patients (21.2%) had at least 1-grade of improvement. Univariable and multivariable analyses results are listed in the table. Mean baseline mitral regurgitant fraction by CMR was 14% ± 13%, while the mean of mitral regurgitation severity by echo was in the mild range (1.28 ±1). Baseline FMR grade by TTE (P<0.001), CMR-LA volume indexed (P=0.003), sphericity ratio (P=0.005), MV annular mean indexed (P=0.027), and BMI (P=0.044) were independently associated with significant change in FMR. Conclusion: CMR-derived remodeling, LA and MV geometry parameters predicted progressive vs regression in FMR. Further studies are needed to determine if CMR predictors of FMR progression vs regression can improve selection criteria for procedural intervention vs guideline-directed medical therapy.
Background: Naples prognostic score (NPS) is a recently developed tool for assessing inflammatory and nutritional status. It is commonly used to evaluate cancer patients. Purpose: We aimed to investigate the impact of NPS on clinical outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed, WOS, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through June 2024. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis pooling dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). All analyses were performed using R V. 4.3.1. Results: We included five studies with a total of 12,785 patients. Comparing high NPS (3-4) to low NPS (0-2), high NPS (3-4) was significantly associated with an increased incidence of overall mortality (RR: 2.21, 95% CI [1.85, 2.65], P < 0.01), shock (RR: 1.85, 95% CI [1.33, 2.57], P < 0.01), acute kidney injury (RR: 1.54, 95% CI [1.15, 2.08], P < 0.01), left ventricular thrombus (RR: 2.93, 95% CI [1.44, 5.94], P < 0.01), and no-reflow (RR: 1.35, 95% CI [1.17, 1.57], P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between high NPS (3-4) and low NPS (0-2) regarding in-hospital mortality (RR: 1.82, 95% CI [0.99, 3.37], P = 0.06). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis highlights the importance of evaluating inflammation and malnutrition status in STEMI and shows that routine blood tests can provide prognostic insights. NPS can help predict different clinical outcomes in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI. While it does not affect in-hospital mortality, its simplicity and accessibility make it useful for clinical risk assessment and long-term prognosis. Further studies are needed to investigate its predictive value further.
The prognostic significance of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-based left atrial ejection fraction (LAEF) is not well defined in the ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) cohort.
Data on the efficacy and safety of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) remains limited. This study aims to pool evidence on EBCR's efficacy and safety in LVAD patients and compare high-intensity (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity (MIIT) regimens. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2024. A fixed-effects model reported dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The study was registered in PROSPERO under the identifier 'CRD42024506485.' Six RCTs with 160 patients were included. No significant difference was found between EBCR and usual care for peak VO2 change [p = 0.22] and six-minute walk distance (6-MWD) change [p = 0.16]. Similarly, no significant difference was observed between HIIT and MICT for peak VO2 change [p = 0.52] and 6-MWD change [p = 0.61]. Moreover, there was no significant difference between EBCR and usual care regarding the incidence of adverse events [p = 0.09], and between HIIT and MICT exercise [p = 0.71]. The evidence suggests EBCR does not improve functional capacity, measured by peak VO2 or 6-MWD, in LVAD patients. However, EBCR is safe, with similar adverse event rates compared to usual care.
Despite the advent of newer stents, in-stent restenosis has been a persistent and formidable challenge. Trials have demonstrated superiority of drug coated balloons (DCB) over balloon angioplasty (BA). Therefore we conducted a meta-analysis aimed at elucidating their respective clinical outcomes. A literature search using MEDLINE (EMBASE and PubMed) using a systematic search strategy by PRISMA till November 01, 2023. CRAN-R software was used for statistical analysis. The quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We included 6 studies with a total of 1171 patients. Our analysis showed decreased odds of multiple outcomes with statistically significant results including target vessel re-vascularization (OR 0.33, CI 0.19-0.57), target vessel failure (OR 0.30, CI 0.09-0.99), target lesion re-vascularization (OR 0.22, CI 0.10-0.46), restenosis (OR 0.1343, CI 0.06-0.27), and major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.2, CI 0.12-0.37) in the DCB arm. Although myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality showed decreased odds in the DCB arm, with all-cause mortality 0.8 (CI 0.363-2.09), and MI at 0.6 (CI 0.0349-1.07), the reductions did not reach statistical significance. Our study favored DCB over BA in management of in-stent coronary restenosis.
Background: The prognostic significance of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) based left atrial ejection fraction (LAEF) is not well defined in the ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) cohort.We assess the additive effect of LAEF in a model to predict outcomes in patients with ICM. Methods: Patients with ICM, who underwent CMR between April 2001 and March 2019 were retrospectively included. Clinical characteristics and CMR parameters were collected and analyzed and LAEF was calculated in addition to myocardial infarct size (MIS) using late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and CMR based mitral regurgitant fraction (MRF). The primary clinical endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and cardiac transplant. A multiple-variable Cox proportional hazards regression model which included established predictors of outcome was constructed, followed by the addition of LAEF. Four pre-specified interactions of LAEF with left ventricular end systolic volume index (LVESVi), MIS and mitral regurgitant fraction (MRF) were tested at a significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: LA functional data was measured in 718 patients. There were 416 deaths and/or transplants, with a median duration of follow up of 1763 days (4.8 years) The mean LA EF was 36 [2 ,74]. In univariate analysis, lower LAEF and higher LAVI were significant predictors of worse outcome, HR= 0.12, 95% CI [0.06, 0.25], p<0.001; HR 1.008, (1.003-1.014) p = 0.003. After addition to the multivariable model, a normal LAEF was highly predictive of reduced risk, HR 0.24, (0.12, 0.48), p<0.001. In the interaction between LAEF and MIS with MR Fraction, the highest risk was observed in patients with an LAEF < 20% and an MIS of > 30%, with MR Fraction of >35%, HR of 3.2 (1.73-5.93), p= 0.009. The lowest risk was in patients with an LAEF of >50% with an MIS of <15 and MR Fraction of <35%, HR 1.07 (0.81-1.42), p=0.009. Figure 1. CONCLUSION: Reduced LAEF is an important predictor of increased mortality in patients with ICM and additive to MIS and MR Fraction.
