No abstract

We tested the hypothesis that the use of outward displacement of the soft tissue between the apex and the chest wall as seen in TTE, is a sign of apical displacement and would allow for more accurate diagnosis of apical dyskinesis. This is a retrospective study of 123 patients who underwent TTE and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within a time frame of 6 months between 2008 and 2019. 110 subjects were deemed to have good quality studies and included in the final analysis. An observer blinded to the study objectives evaluated the echocardiograms and recorded the presence or absence of apical dyskinesis. Two independent observers evaluated the echocardiograms based on the presence or absence of outward displacement of the overlying tissue at the LV apex. Cardiac MRI was used to validate the presence of apical dyskinesis. The proportion of studies which were identified as having apical dyskinesis with conventional criteria defined as outward movement of the left ventricular apex during systole were compared to those deemed to have dyskinesis based on tissue displacement. By cardiac MRI, 90 patients had apical dyskinesis. Using conventional criteria on TTE interpretation, 21 were diagnosed with apical dyskinesis (23.3%). However, when soft tissue displacement was used as the diagnostic marker of dyskinesis, 78 patients (86.7%) were diagnosed with dyskinesis, p < 0.01. Detection of displacement of soft tissue overlying the LV apex facilitates better recognition of LV apical dyskinesis.

Background: Electrical storm is defined as three or more episodes of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) within a 24-hour period requiring termination by cardioversion, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) or defibrillation. It can be a particularly challenging syndrome to treat when refractory to standard of care therapies, which include antiarrhythmics, sedation, and ablation. We present a case of refractory electrical storm requiring total artificial heart placement (TAH) as a bridge to transplant. Case: A 65-year-old male with a history of idiopathic non-ischemic cardiomyopathy presented with VF arrest. After return of spontaneous circulation, he was admitted to the cardiac intensive care unit. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) interrogation showed 38 shocks delivered over the prior two-week period. Coronary angiography showed no obstructive coronary disease and an intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) was placed for cardiogenic shock. He was intubated and sedated on fentanyl and propofol. He continued to have episodes of VT despite treatment with lidocaine, procainamide, and amiodarone drips. Further trials of paralysis and left stellate ganglion nerve block did not suppress his VT. Since the patient was refractory to all prior interventions, was deemed too unstable for VT ablation, and had a prolonged anticipated wait time for heart transplant, he underwent TAH placement as a bridge to heart transplant. He recovered well and eventually underwent successful heart transplant. Discussion: Management of electrical storm requires a stepwise approach including administration of antiarrhythmics, sedation, mechanical hemodynamic support, and catheter ablation. Our patient had incessant VT despite exhaustive medical and supportive therapies, but was too unstable to undergo VT ablation. In cases of refractory VT storm, definitive treatment with heart transplantation must be considered, but bridging patients to transplant poses a challenge. Our patient underwent TAH placement and was successfully stabilized prior to transplant. In centers with this capability, TAH should be recognized as a legitimate option in the pathway for VT, particularly with a long anticipated wait time for heart transplant.

Background: In the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation scheme prior to October 18, 2018, heart transplant (HTx) candidates with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS), or pulmonary artery (PA) catheter inotropic support all received Status 1A priority. In revised scheme, patients with PA catheter and inotropic support are Status 3 after those on ECMO (Status 1) or temporary MCS (Status 2). We examined the impact of the allocation change on HTx candidates listed Status 1A versus Status 3 at a high-volume transplant center. Methods: Between January 2017 and January 2021, 75 patients were listed with a PA catheter and inotropic support prior to the allocation change (Era 1) and 48 were listed after (Era 2). Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared for these 123 patients.Results: Heart transplant (HTx) candidates in Era 2 had higher median inotrope doses at listing. There was no significant difference in inpatient wait list days (12 vs. 20 days, P = .15), transition to temporary MCS (33.3% vs. 22.7%, P = .15), or wait list mortality (6.3% vs. 4.0%, P = .68). There was also no significant difference in survival to transplantation (91.7% vs. 94.7%, P = .71). There were no differences in post-transplant outcomes including 1-year survival (88.6% vs. 93.0%, P = .38). Conclusion:At a high-volume transplant center, the UNOS allocation change did not result in increased wait list time, use of temporary MCS, or mortality on the waitlist or post-transplant for candidates on inotropic support with continuous hemodynamic monitoring.

No abstract