No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Right-sided endocarditis (RSE) accounts for 5%-10% of all cases of infective endocarditis (IE) and frequently has different etiological, pathogenetic, and clinical presentations compared with left-sided endocarditis (LSE). The aims of this study were to evaluate the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics and prognosis of RSE patients and to compare them with those of LSE patients. This study's importance relates to the local understanding of RSE and LSE, since Israeli demographics are different compared to the Unites States and Europe with regard to intravenous drug abuse and rheumatic valvular disease prevalence. Material and Methods:A retrospective cohort study of 215 patients with infective endocarditis was performed. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were duration of hospitalization, recurrent hospitalization, recurrent infective endocarditis, and one-year mortality. Results:Of the 215 patients in the study, 176 had LSE and 39 had RSE. The RSE patients were younger than the LSE patients (48.1±18.9 years versus 61.8±17.0 years, P<0.001). The most common pathogen in both groups was Staphylococcus aureus, which occurred more in the RSE group (51%) versus the LSE group (19%). In-hospital mortality was lower among patients with RSE (2.6% versus 17%, P<0.037). Comparison of Right-and Left-sided Endocarditis

ObjectiveThe optimal treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is anticoagulation therapy. Inferior vena cava filter (IVC) placement is another option for the prevention of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients with deep vein thrombosis. This is used mostly in patients with a contraindication to anticoagulant therapy. The purpose of the present study was to compare the two options.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of two groups of patients with DVT: patients who received an IVC filter and did not receive anticoagulation due to contraindications; and patients with DVT and similar burden of comorbidity treated with anticoagulation without IVC insertion. To adjust for a potential misbalance in baseline characteristics between the two groups, we performed matching for age, gender, and Charlson’s index, which is used to compute the burden of comorbid conditions. The primary outcome was an occurrence of a PE.ResultsWe studied 1,742 patients hospitalized with the diagnosis of DVT in our hospital;93 patients from this population received IVC filters. Charlson’s score index was significantly higher in the IVC filter group compared with the anticoagulation group. After matching of the groups of patients according to Charlson’s score index there were no significant differences in primary outcomes.ConclusionInferior vena cava filter without anticoagulation may be an alternative option for prevention of PE in patients with contraindications to anticoagulant therapy.

No abstract