Learning from Interviews with HIV-Discordant Couples (Male Positive, Female Negative): The Challenges and Successes

This article examines the challenges and successes of recruiting participants and maintaining momentum in a small qualitative study on the experiences of HIV-discordant couples (where the male is HIV-positive and the female is HIV-negative) undergoing fertility assessment and/or treatment in Ontario, Canada, to reduce the risk of HIV transmission to the woman and fetus. The purpose of this article is to identify barriers and successes encountered in our study, consider how these are addressed in the literature, and highlight specific factors that need to be considered when studying a unique population similar to ours

Case Series of Fertility Treatment in HIV-Discordant Couples (Male Positive, Female Negative): The Ontario Experience

The success of combination antiretroviral therapies for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has resulted in prolonged life expectancy (over 40 years from diagnosis) and an improved quality of life for people living with HIV. The risk of vertical HIV transmission during pregnancy has been reduced to less than 1%. As a result of these breakthroughs and as many of these individuals are of reproductive age, fertility issues are becoming increasingly important for this population. One population in which conception planning and reduction of horizontal HIV transmission warrants further research is HIV-discordant couples where the male partner is HIV-positive and the female partner is HIV-negative. Sperm washing is a technique carried out in a fertility clinic that separates HIV from the seminal fluid. Although sperm washing followed by intrauterine insemination significantly reduces the risk of horizontal HIV transmission, there has been limited access to the procedure in North America. Furthermore, little is known about the conception decision-making experiences of HIV-discordant couples who might benefit from sperm washing. Chart reviews and semi-structured interviews were completed with 12 HIV-discordant couples in Ontario, Canada. Couples were recruited through HIV clinics and one fertility clinic that offered sperm washing. Participants identified a number of factors that affected their decision-making around pregnancy planning. Access to sperm washing and other fertility services was an issue (cost, travel and few clinics). Participants identified a lack of information on the procedure (availability, safety). Sources of support (social networks, healthcare providers) were unevenly distributed, especially among those who did not disclose their HIV status to friends and family. Finally, the stigmatisation of HIV continues to have a negative affect on HIV-discordant couples and their intentions to conceive. Access to sperm washing and fertility service is significantly limited for this population and is accompanied with a number of challenges

Permanent Pacemaker Lead Insertion Connected to an External Pacemaker Generator for Temporary Pacing After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have been demonstrated to be at least equivalent in the short term compared to surgical valve implantation (SAVI). However, Conduction abnormalities are more common after TAVI than SAVI and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation is more common after TAVI with the currently commercially available self-expanding valves than after SAVI. Temporary pacemaker implantation may be associated with inability to ambulate, lead migration or perforation and infection. Depending on the monitoring system, some arrhythmias may not be detected. We examined the feasibility and safety of permanent pacemaker lead implantation connected to an external generator in patients undergoing TAVI at our institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients (between April 1st 2014 and April 30th 2016) at a single center without permanent pacemaker at the time of TAVI who underwent implantation of a permanent pacemaker lead after TAVI connected to an external generator. Focus was the examination of feasibility and safety of our aforementioned approach. In addition, data analysis was performed separating patients into two groups depending on whether (group 1) or not (group 2) permanent pacemaker implantation was ultimately needed. RESULTS: Per our institutional protocol, all consecutive 114 patients underwent insertion of a permanent pacemaker lead after TAVI connected to an external generator. There was one pericardial effusion on postoperative day one that may have been related to the left ventricular wire for TAVI valve delivery. However, perforation due to the pacemaker lead cannot be excluded. Specifically, no access site complications, lead dislodgments or infections occurred. All patients were able to ambulate after the procedure without delay. The permanent pacemaker lead remained in place on average for 4.3 days in group 1 (n = 10) and 4.4 days in group 2 (n = 104) (variance of 3.8 and 3.4 days respectively, [minimum/maximum 0/11 days and 1 and 12 days]). Of the ten patients (9%) who required permanent pacemaker implantation, 8 had a complete atrioventricular block and two had tachy-brady arrhythmias in the context of atrial fibrillation. None of the baseline characteristics including baseline conduction abnormalities were predictors for PPI. CONCLUSION: Implantation of a permanent pacemaker lead connected to an external generator is feasible and safe and could be a better option than implantation of a temporary lead connected to an external generator. It may allow earlier ambulation and facilitate monitoring