Acute Appendagitis Presenting with Features of Appendicitis: Value of Abdominal CT Evaluation

We report a case of acute appendagitis in a patient who presented initially with typical features of acute appendicitis. The diagnosis of acute appendagitis was made on pathognomonic signs on computed tomography (CT) scan. Abdominal pain is a common surgical emergency. CT is not always done if there are clear features of acute appendicitis. The rare but important differential diagnosis of acute appendagitis must be borne in mind when dealing with patients with suspected acute appendicitis. A CT scan of the abdomen may avoid unnecessary surgery in these patients

Early Surgery for Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines provide class I recommendations for aortic valve intervention for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) or reduced ejection fraction, but the cornerstone of management for asymptomatic patients has been watchful waiting. This is based on historical nonrandomized data, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have now been performed of early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for asymptomatic severe AS. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing early SAVR to watchful waiting for asymptomatic severe AS, focusing on individual end points of death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. METHODS: We systematically identified all RCTs comparing early SAVR to watchful waiting in patients with asymptomatic severe AS and synthesized the data in a random-effects meta-analysis. The prespecified primary end point was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Two trials randomizing 302 patients were included. Early SAVR lead to a 55% reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.85; P = .014). There was no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). Early SAVR also lead to a 79% reduction in HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.96; P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe asymptomatic AS and normal ejection fraction, early SAVR reduces death and HF hospitalization compared to initial conservative management. This challenges current treatment standards and has implications for the clinical care of these patients and for guidelines

Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The optimal method of revascularization for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been considered the gold standard therapy, and recent randomized trials comparing CABG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) have reported conflicting outcomes. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis comparing CABG to PCI with DES for the treatment of LMCAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing PCI with DES vs. CABG in patients with LMCAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization. All analyses were by intention-to-treat. There were five eligible trials in which 4612 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the risk of all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.32; P = 0.779] or cardiac death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79-1.34; P = 0.817). There were also no significant differences in the risk of stroke (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.35-1.50; P = 0.400) or MI (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.96-1.56; P = 0.110). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased risk of unplanned revascularization (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.49-2.02; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The totality of randomized clinical trial evidence demonstrated similar long-term mortality after PCI with DES compared with CABG in patients with LMCAD. Nor were there significant differences in cardiac death, stroke, or MI between PCI and CABG. Unplanned revascularization procedures were less common after CABG compared with PCI. These findings may inform clinical decision-making between cardiologists, surgeons, and patients with LMCAD

Catheter ablation improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The effect of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients with AF and heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in trials with at least 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were performed for trials with any follow-up and trials deemed at low risk of bias. Eight trials (1390 patients) were included. Seven hundred and seven patients were randomized to catheter ablation and 683 to medical therapy. In the primary analysis (three trials, n = 977), catheter ablation reduced mortality compared with medical therapy [relative risk (RR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44 to 0.84, P = 0.003]. Catheter ablation also reduced heart failure hospitalizations compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.74, P < 0.001). The effect on stroke was not statistically significant (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28-1.37, P = 0.237). There was low heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure, catheter ablation reduces mortality and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations

Complete Revascularization by Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Background For patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease, the optimal treatment of the non-infarct-related artery has been controversial. This up-to-date meta-analysis focusing on individual clinical end points was performed to further evaluate the benefit of complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods and Results We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention to culprit-only revascularization for multivessel disease in STEMI and performed a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary efficacy end point was cardiovascular death analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. Ten studies (7542 patients) were included: 3664 patients were randomized to complete revascularization and 3878 to culprit-only revascularization. Across all patients, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-only revascularization for reduction in the risk of cardiovascular death (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98; P=0.037; I2=21.8%) and reduction in the risk of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79; P<0.0001; I2=0.0%). Complete revascularization also significantly reduced the risk of unplanned revascularization (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.28-0.51; P<0.0001; I2=64.7%). The difference in all-cause mortality with percutaneous coronary intervention was not statistically significant (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.04; P=0.108; I2=0.0%). Conclusions For patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention significantly improves hard clinical outcomes including cardiovascular death and myocardial infarction. These data have implications for clinical practice guidelines regarding recommendations for complete revascularization following STEMI

Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia After MI: A Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic impact of ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients developing VT after MI. METHODS: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with VT and prior MI. The prespecified primary endpoint was reconstructed individual patient assessment of all-cause mortality. Prespecified secondary endpoints included trial-level assessment of all-cause mortality, VT recurrence or defibrillator shocks and all-cause hospitalisations. Prespecified subgroup analysis was performed for ablation approaches involving only substrate modification without VT activation mapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed depending on the proportion of patients with prior MI included. RESULTS: Eight trials, recruiting a total of 874 patients, were included. Of these 874 patients, 430 were randomised to catheter ablation and 444 were randomised to medical therapy. Catheter ablation reduced all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy when synthesising individual patient data (HR 0.63; 95% CI [0.41-0.96]; p=0.03), but not in trial-level analysis (RR 0.91; 95% CI [0.67-1.23]; p=0.53; I2=0%). Catheter ablation significantly reduced VT recurrence, defibrillator shocks and hospitalisations compared with medical therapy. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with postinfarct VT, catheter ablation reduces mortality

Improving ultrasound video classification: an evaluation of novel deep learning methods in echocardiography

Echocardiography is the commonest medical ultrasound examination, but automated interpretation is challenging and hinges on correct recognition of the ‘view’ (imaging plane and orientation). Current state-of-the-art methods for identifying the view computationally involve 2-dimensional convolutional neural networks (CNNs), but these merely classify individual frames of a video in isolation, and ignore information describing the movement of structures throughout the cardiac cycle. Here we explore the efficacy of novel CNN architectures, including time-distributed networks and two-stream networks, which are inspired by advances in human action recognition. We demonstrate that these new architectures more than halve the error rate of traditional CNNs from 8.1% to 3.9%. These advances in accuracy may be due to these networks’ ability to track the movement of specific structures such as heart valves throughout the cardiac cycle. Finally, we show the accuracies of these new state-of-the-art networks are approaching expert agreement (3.6% discordance), with a similar pattern of discordance between views

Rationale and design of the randomized multicentre His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) trial:HOPE HF Trial rationale and design

Aims In patients with heart failure and a pathologically prolonged PR interval, left ventricular (LV) filling can be improved by shortening atrioventricular delay using His‐bundle pacing. His‐bundle pacing delivers physiological ventricular activation and has been shown to improve acute haemodynamic function in this group of patients. In the HOPE‐HF (His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure) trial, we are investigating whether these acute haemodynamic improvements translate into improvements in exercise capacity and heart failure symptoms. Methods and results This multicentre, double‐blind, randomized, crossover study aims to randomize 160 patients with PR prolongation (≥200 ms), LV impairment (EF ≤ 40%), and either narrow QRS (≤140 ms) or right bundle branch block. All patients receive a cardiac device with leads positioned in the right atrium and the His bundle. Eligible patients also receive a defibrillator lead. Those not eligible for implantable cardioverter defibrillator have a backup pacing lead positioned in an LV branch of the coronary sinus. Patients are allocated in random order to 6 months of (i) haemodynamically optimized dual chamber His‐bundle pacing and (ii) backup pacing only, using the non‐His ventricular lead. The primary endpoint is change in exercise capacity assessed by peak oxygen uptake. Secondary endpoints include change in ejection fraction, quality of life scores, B‐type natriuretic peptide, daily patient activity levels, and safety and feasibility assessments of His‐bundle pacing. Conclusions Hope‐HF aims to determine whether correcting PR prolongation in patients with heart failure and narrow QRS or right bundle branch block using haemodynamically optimized dual chamber His‐bundle pacing improves exercise capacity and symptoms. We aim to complete recruitment by the end of 2018 and report in 2020