Anil Kumar Jonnalagadda

Assessment of hypertension control and clinical course of patients excluded from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial.

The screening of patients referred for the Symplicity Renal-Denervation Catheter Therapy on Resistant Hypertension (SYMPLICITY HTN-3) trial was rigorous, with many found not eligible to participate. We investigate patients who were not included in the trial and evaluate their current hypertensive (HTN) therapy, control and clinical status. A retrospective review and telephone interview was performed 8-10 months postscreening on 45 patients and their referring providers who were ultimately not included. Patients were grouped into 4 categories: (1) noninterest; (2) excluded (not meeting inclusion criteria); (3) screen failure (excluded during screening visits due to adequate blood pressure control guided by HTN specialist); or (4) referred after enrollment closure. Primary outcomes evaluated included current anti-HTN management and clinical outcomes. This population consisted of 42% males, mean age 65 ± 5 years, 78% African American, 64% diabetic, and 21% chronic kidney disease. Primary referral basis included cardiology (44%), nephrology (30%), and primary care (26%). At time of follow-up, 20% had continued resistant HTN while most of the patients had controlled HTN (60%); with highest success rates among the screen failure group (88%) who also had the lowest average systolic blood pressure (137 ± 11 mm of Hg) when compared to other groups (P = .04). Average number of medications was lowest in the screen failure group (2.8 ± 1.6, P = .07). Resistant and/or uncontrolled HTN was most prevalent in the noninterest or excluded groups, as were hospitalization for cardiovascular and HTN urgency/emergency. This study highlights the disparity of HTN control and treatment in daily practice compared with clinical trials, and confirms a need for vigilant screening of those considered candidates for renal denervation.

Revascularization of radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis with carotid endarterectomy vs. carotid artery stenting: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE The incidence of carotid artery stenosis after head and neck radiation is anticipated to rise due to the increasing survival of patients with head and neck malignancies. It remains unclear whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) is the best treatment strategy for radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis. MATERIALS & METHODS This study was performed according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Eligible studies were identified through a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central until July 20, 2017. A meta-analysis of random effects model was conducted. The I-square statistic was used to assess for heterogeneity. RESULTS Five studies and 143 patients were included. Periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and death rates were similar between the two revascularization approaches. However, the risk for cranial nerve (CN) injury was higher in the CEA group (OR: 7.09; 95% CI: 1.17-42.88; I2 = 0%). CEA was associated with lower mortality rates after a mean follow-up of 50 months (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.97; I2 = 0%). No difference was identified in long-term restenosis rates between CEA and CAS. CONCLUSIONS Patients with radiation-induced carotid artery stenosis can safely undergo both CAS and CEA with similar risks of periprocedural stroke, MI and death. However, patients treated with CEA have a higher risk for periprocedural CN injuries and a lower risk for long-term mortality.

CAROTID ARTERY ENDARTERECTOMY VERSUS CAROTID ARTERY STENTING FOR RESTENOSIS AFTER CAROTID ARTERY ENDARTERECTOMY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Carotid artery restenosis may occur after ipsilateral carotid endarterectomy (CEA). It remains unclear whether carotid artery stenting (CAS) or a repeat CEA (redoCEA) is the best treatment strategy for carotid artery restenosis. This study was performed according to the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines

The predictive value of baseline pulmonary hypertension in early and long term cardiac and all-cause mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation for patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a safe and effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic valve stenosis (AS). The impact of concomitant baseline elevated pulmonary artery pressures on outcomes after TAVI has not been established, since different studies used different definitions of pulmonary hypertension (PH). OBJECTIVE To determine the association of PH with early and late cardiac and all-cause mortality after TAVI. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressures (defined as pulmonary hypertension or not) versus patients without elevated pulmonary artery pressures undergoing TAVI. We first performed stratified analyses based on the different PH cut-off values utilized by the included studies and subsequently pooled the studies irrespective of their cut-off values. We used a random effects model for the meta-analysis and assessed heterogeneity with I-square. Separate meta-analyses were performed for studies reporting outcomes as hazards ratios (HRs) and relative risks (RRs). Subgroup analyses were performed for studies published before and after 2013. Meta-regression analysis in order to assess the effect of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and mitral regurgitation were performed. RESULTS In total 22 studies were included in this systematic review. Among studies presenting results as HR, PH was associated with increased late cardiac mortality (HR: 1.8. 95% CI: 1.3-2.3) and late all-cause mortality (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.1-2). The PH cut-off value that was most likely to be associated with worst outcomes among the different endpoints was pulmonary artery systolic pressure of 60 mm Hg (HR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3-2.3; I2 = 0, for late cardiac mortality and HR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1-2.1; I2 = 85% for late all-cause mortality). CONCLUSION This systematic review and meta-analysis emphasizes the importance of baseline PH in predicting mortality outcomes after TAVI. Additional studies are needed to clarify the association between elevated baseline pulmonary artery pressures and outcomes after TAVI.