Temporal trends of infective endocarditis in North America from 2000 to 2017 – a systematic review

Objectives To examine temporal changes of infective endocarditis (IE) incidence and epidemiology in North America. Patients and Methods A systematic review was conducted at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Ovid EBM Reviews™, Ovid Embase™, Ovid Medline™, Scopus™, and Web of Science™ were searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and May 31, 2020. Four referees independently reviewed all studies, and those that reported a population-based incidence of IE in patients aged 18 years and older in North America were included. Results Of 8,588 articles screened, 14 were included. Overall, IE incidence remained largely unchanged throughout the study period, except for two studies that demonstrated a rise in incidence after 2014. Five studies reported temporal trends of injection drug use (IDU) prevalence among IE patients with a notable increase in prevalence observed. Staphylococcus aureus was the most common pathogen in 7 of 9 studies that included microbiologic findings. In-patient mortality ranged from 3.7-14.4%, while the percentage of patients who underwent surgery ranged from 6.4-16.0%. Conclusion Overall incidence of IE has remained stable among the 14 population-based investigations in North America identified in our systematic review. Standardization of study design for future population-based investigations have been highlighted for use in subsequent systematic reviews of IE

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464–1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711

The Lipid Paradox is present in ST-elevation but not in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients:Insights from the Singapore Myocardial Infarction Registry

Lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) and triglyceride (TG) levels form the cornerstone approach of cardiovascular risk reduction, and a higher high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) is thought to be protective. However, in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients, higher admission LDL-C and TG levels have been shown to be associated with better clinical outcomes - termed the 'lipid paradox'. We studied the relationship between lipid profile obtained within 72 hours of presentation, and all-cause mortality (during hospitalization, at 30-days and 12-months), and rehospitalization for heart failure and non-fatal AMI at 12-months in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We included 11543 STEMI and 8470 NSTEMI patients who underwent PCI in the Singapore Myocardial Infarction Registry between 2008-2015. NSTEMI patients were older (60.3 years vs 57.7 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to be female (22.4% vs 15.0%, p < 0.001). In NSTEMI, a lower LDL-C was paradoxically associated with worse outcomes for death during hospitalization, within 30-days and within 12-months (all p < 0.001), but adjustment eliminated this paradox. In contrast, the paradox for LDL-C persisted for all primary outcomes after adjustment in STEMI. For NSTEMI patients, a lower HDL-C was associated with a higher risk of death during hospitalization but in STEMI patients a lower HDL-C was paradoxically associated with a lower risk of death during hospitalization. For this endpoint, the interaction term for HDL-C and type of MI was significant even after adjustment. An elevated TG level was not protective after adjustment. These observations may be due to differing characteristics and underlying pathophysiological mechanisms in NSTEMI and STEMI

2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease

The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. An extensive evidence review was conducted as the document was compiled through December 2008. Repeated literature searches were performed by the guideline development staff and writing committee members as new issues were considered. New clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals and articles through December 2011 were also reviewed and incorporated when relevant. Furthermore, because of the extended development time period for this guideline, peer review comments indicated that the sections focused on imaging technologies required additional updating, which occurred during 2011. Therefore, the evidence review for the imaging sections includes published literature through December 2011