Compared with warfarin, periprocedural anticoagulation with dabigatran resulted in fewer minor hemorrhages and total adverse events after AF ablation. Patients anticoagulated with NOACs required larger doses of heparin and took longer to reach the goal ACT compared with patients anticoagulated with warfarin.

SUMMARYAims: Sequential nephron blockade with thiazide-like diuretics is a strategy used to overcome diuretic resistance in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF), but head-to-head studies are lacking and equipoise exists regarding the preferred thiazide-like diuretic in this setting. We thus compared the effectiveness of oral metolazone versus intravenous (IV) chlorothiazide as add-on therapy to loop diuretics in hospitalized patients with ADHF and renal dysfunction. Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral metolazone versus IV chlorothiazide as add-on therapy to loop diuretics in patients hospitalized with ADHF and renal dysfunction. The primary endpoint was net urine output (UOP) at 72 h after initiation of thiazide-like diuretics. Safety endpoints included worsening renal function, hypotension, and electrolyte abnormalities. Results: Fifty-five patients were enrolled with 33 patients receiving metolazone and 22 patients receiving chlorothiazide. There was no difference in median net UOP at 72 h in those receiving metolazone (4828 mL, interquartile range [IQR] 2800-7209 mL) compared to chlorothiazide (3779 mL, IQR 1885-6535 mL) (P = 0.16). There was no difference in hypotension, worsening renal function, hyponatremia, or hypokalemia (P = NS for all comparisons). Hospital length of stay was shorter in the metolazone cohort (median 7 days) compared to chlorothiazide (median 15 days), suggesting the chlorothiazide cohort was likely sicker. Conclusion: Sequential nephron blockade with either metolazone or chlorothiazide appears to be efficacious and safe in ADHF, renal dysfunction, and diuretic resistance. Given the considerable cost difference favoring oral metolazone, larger randomized studies are warranted to confirm our findings and to exclude the possibility of confounding by indication.

Significant variability exists between the MDRD and Cockcroft-Gault equations for spot dosing adjustments. Use of MDRD estimates with current manufacturer dosing guidelines may result in subtherapeutic medication therapies for patients with stage IV or V disease and supratherapeutic therapies for patients with stage III disease.

No abstract

Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a common complication following heart transplantation (HT), resulting in diminished graft survival. The preferred strategy for preventing CAV is optimal medical management; however, for patients who develop CAV, delaying disease progression through effective medication management is equally important. A review of the literature regarding medication management of CAV was conducted via a search of the MEDLINE database. Studies were included if they were published in English, conducted in humans ≥ 18 years of age or older, and used noninvestigational medications. Immunosuppressive medications such as the antiproliferative mycophenolate, the calcineurin inhibitor tacrolimus, and the proliferation signal inhibitors sirolimus and everolimus have been shown to prevent the development of CAV. Certain cardiovascular medications, such as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), gemfibrozil, calcium channel blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, have also demonstrated efficacy in preventing this disease process. Prevention of CAV has also been observed with prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus infection and antioxidant medications. Despite being commonly used in HT patients, neither antiplatelet agents nor glycemic control have proved effective at preventing CAV. Only sirolimus has been shown to arrest the progress of existing CAV.