Impact of respiratory infectious epidemics on STEMI incidence and care

The effect of respiratory infectious diseases on STEMI incidence, but also STEMI care is not well understood. The Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic and the COVID-19 pandemic were chosen as observational periods to investigate the effect of respiratory virus diseases on these outcomes in a metropolitan area with an established STEMI network. We analyzed data on incidence and care during the COVID-19 pandemic, Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic and corresponding seasonal control periods. Three comparisons were performed: (1) COVID-19 pandemic group versus pandemic control group, (2) COVID-19 pandemic group versus Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic group and (3) Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic group versus epidemic control group. We used Student's t-test, Fisher's exact test and Chi square test for statistical analysis. 1455 patients were eligible. The daily STEMI incidence was 1.49 during the COVID-19 pandemic, 1.40 for the pandemic season control period, 1.22 during the Influenza 2017/2018 epidemic and 1.28 during the epidemic season control group. Median symptom-to-contact time was 180 min during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the pandemic season control group it was 90 min (p = 0.183), and in the Influenza 2017/2018 cohort it was 90 min, too (p = 0.216). Interval in the epidemic control group was 79 min (p = 0.733). The COVID-19 group had a door-to-balloon time of 49 min, corresponding intervals were 39 min for the pandemic season group (p = 0.038), 37 min for the Influenza 2017/2018 group (p = 0.421), and 38 min for the epidemic season control group (p = 0.429). In-hospital mortality was 6.1% for the COVID-19 group, 5.9% for the Influenza 2017/2018 group (p = 1.0), 11% and 11.2% for the season control groups. The respiratory virus diseases neither resulted in an overall treatment delay, nor did they cause an increase in STEMI mortality or incidence. The registry analysis demonstrated a prolonged door-to-balloon time during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Stroke and mortality rates after valve-in-valve TAVR and comparison with data from redo SAVR

Background and purpose

Early registry data described a potentially increased risk for cerebrovascular events and mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as valve-in-valve (viv) procedures. Further data of small patient cohorts described divergent results for cerebrovascular events and mortality in patients undergoing TAVR as viv procedures for failed surgical bioprotheses in comparison with patients on redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We performed a meta-analysis of stroke rates and mortality for viv TAVR procedures basing on the current literature.

Methods

We included all case series (≥10 patients), case-control studies and randomized controlled trials comparing viv TAVR and redo SAVR procedures with respect to cerebrovascular events and mortality rates. Additionally, we included all case series and registries with patients undergoing viv TAVR. After a structured literature research, 17 studies were eligible. For statistical analysis risk ratios and confidence intervals using Mantel-Haenszel test and the I-statistic to quantify possible heterogeneity were calculated. A P-value <0.05 was defined as statistical significant difference.

Results

Eleven case series and registries reporting on stroke and mortality in 8,509 patients undergoing viv TAVR were eligible for analysis. The quantitative analysis of non-comparative studies showed a calculated 30-day stroke rate of 2.2% and 30-day mortality rate of 4.2% after viv TAVR. Data on the 1-year rates were sporadically reported, therefore meta analysis was not appropriately feasible.

Six studies reporting on 498 participants undergoing viv TAVR (N=254) and redo SAVR (N=244) were eligible. The median age ranged from 72.3 to 80.2 years for viv TAVR and from 66.2 to 78.8 years for redo SAVR patients. The STS score was 7.2–7.4% (viv TAVR) and 5.8–7.7% (redo SAVR), respectively. A total of 3/226 participants treated with viv TAVR and 4/214 patients undergoing redo SAVR experienced a stroke during the first 30 postoperative days (N=4 trials, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.59, p=0.83, I2 = 0%). None of the studies reported sufficient data on the 1-year stroke incidence. The 30-day mortality was 4.3% for viv TAVR and 4.5% for redo SAVR patients. This difference was not significantly different (N=6 trials, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.05, p=0.80, I2 = 0%). The 1-year mortality rates were 13.3% and 13.6%, respectively (N=2 trials, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.94, p=0.94, I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

In the current literature favorable stroke and mortality rates at 30 days for patients undergoing viv TAVR are documented. Similar stroke and mortality rates comparing viv TAVR and redo SAVR patients at 30 days were found as well as similar 1-year mortality. A selection bias for the viv TAVR and redo SAVR patients may exist, but cannot be dissolved with this registry analysis, only showing a trend of younger and lower risk patients receiving a redo SAVR procedure.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding source: None

[Role of Laser Resection in Pulmonary Metastasectomy]

Objectives This review presents laser resection as treatment option in pulmonary metastasectomy and summarizes the current evidence. Moreover, it includes the comparison of laser resection and common techniques used in lung metastasectomy. Methods We performed a systematic literature research in Medline and the Cochrane library to detect case series and even randomized trials. All included studies underwent qualitative analysis. Results Laser metastasectomy is a safe procedure. Data regarding relevant clinical end points as hospitalization, duration of chest tube drainage and long-term survival are heterogeneous and still controversial. Laser enucleation decreases the resection volume. Therefore, it leads to a significant reduction of parenchymal loss. Survival rates after laser metastasectomy are equal to the outcome after resection using other techniques. Conclusions Laser resection is a parenchyma-sparing method. Hence, it offers radical metastasectomy even in case of multiple pulmonary lesions or impaired lung capacity.

[Surgical therapy of lung metastases from head and neck cancer]

Pulmonary metastasectomy is an established procedure in oncological therapeutic concepts. A systematic literature search and an analysis of all studies published since 01.01.2000 should evaluate the advantage of pulmonary metastasectomy for patients with primary head and neck cancer. Lung metastases develop in 1.9-13% of head and neck cancer patients. Following metastasectomy, patients reach a median survival of 9.5-78 months and 5-year survival rates of up to 58% are achieved. Intrathoracic recurrence occurs in 18.4-81.8% of patients, selected instances of which can be successfully treated by remetastasectomy. Patients with squamous cell carcinoma have the worst prognosis, but could also become long-term survivors (≥ 60 months). Pulmonary metastasectomy is frequently the only potentially curative therapeutic approach and offers a better long-term survival than nonsurgical therapies. Lung metastasectomy is thus the treatment of choice in selected patients with pulmonary metastases from primary head and neck cancer.