Therapeutic inefficacy of protocol driven intravenous unfractionated heparin infusion in the current era

Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is commonly used for several life-threatening conditions requiring anticoagulant therapy but failure to reach therapeutic levels in 24 h can be associated with adverse outcomes. Use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) may provide an alternative while providing superior outcomes as compared to UFH. We studied 100 patients who underwent UFH therapy for >24 h and found that theoretically 80 % were eligible for LMWH therapy. Only 29 % and 40 % of the total aPTT draws were in the therapeutic window within the first 24 h and at 25–48 h respectively. This study reports that a vast majority of patients remain outside of therapeutic aPTT within first 24–48 h when anticoagulated with UFH. With high eligibility for LMWH therapy, its substitution can potentially lead to better patient outcomes, higher levels of therapeutic efficacy, and decrease in hospital resources

Declining Trend of Transapical Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Aortic Stenosis

INTRODUCTION: The last decade has witnessed major evolution and shifts in the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Included among the shifts has been the advent of alternative access sites for TAVR. Consequently, transapical access (TA) has become significantly less common. This study analyzes in detail the trend of TA access for TAVR over the course of 7 years. METHODS: The national inpatient sample database was reviewed from 2011–2017 and patients with AS were identified by using validated ICD 9-CM and ICD 10-CM codes. Patients who underwent TAVR through TA access were classified as TA-TAVR, and any procedure other than TA access was classified as non-TA-TAVR. We compared the yearly trends of TA-TAVR to those of non-TA-TAVR as the primary outcome. RESULTS: A total of 3,693,231 patients were identified with a diagnosis of AS. 129,821 patients underwent TAVR, of which 10,158 (7.8%) underwent TA-TAVR and 119,663 (92.2%) underwent non-TA-TAVR. After peaking in 2013 at 27.7%, the volume of TA-TAVR declined to 1.92% in 2017 (p < 0.0001). Non-TA-TAVR started in 2013 at 72.2% and consistently increased to 98.1% in 2017. In-patient mortality decreased from a peak of 5.53% in 2014 to 3.18 in 2017 (p=0.6) in the TA-TAVR group and from a peak of 4.51% in 2013 to 1.24% in 2017 (p=0.0001) in the non-TA-TAVR group. CONCLUSION: This study highlights a steady decline in TA access for TAVR, higher inpatient mortality, increased length of stay, and higher costs compared to non-TA-TAVR

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Valve Replacement in Low-Intermediate Surgical Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS) who are at high risk for surgery. We sought to evaluate the outcomes of TAVR vs SAVR in low-intermediate risk patients with SAS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched observational studies comparing TAVR vs SAVR for low-intermediate risk patients. Five RCTs and 5 observational studies with a total of 6891 patients (3489 TAVR patients; 3402 SAVR patients) were included. Pooled data from RCTs showed no significant differences in all-cause mortality between TAVR and SAVR at 30 days (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.47) and intermediate-term follow-up (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67-1.10). A trend toward decreased mortality was found with TAVR using the self-expandable vs balloon-expandable valves (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.52-1.15 and RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 0.25-14.53, respectively) and transfemoral vs transthoracic approach (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-1.01 and RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 0.40-11.03, respectively). Compared to SAVR, TAVR was associated with similar risks of stroke (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11) and myocardial infarction (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.71-1.41). Furthermore, risks of major vascular complications, moderate-severe paravalvular regurgitation, and new permanent pacemaker implantation were higher with TAVR, whereas SAVR was associated with higher rates of acute kidney injury, atrial fibrillation, and major or life-threatening bleed. Finally, the above results from RCTs were consistent with pooled analyses of observational studies. CONCLUSION: TAVR appears to be a suitable alternative for patients with SAS who are at low-intermediate risk for SAVR