Dataset Information

Patient with progressive chest pain and dyspnea after aortic valve replacement.

ABSTRACT: A 45-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) with progressive chest pain and dyspnea 3 months after aortic valve replacement. He had been evaluated by his primary care physician and cardiologist and no diagnosis had been made. On arrival, the emergency physicians performed point-of-care ultrasonography, which showed a large hypoechoic collection compressing the right ventricle. This prompted further workup, including a computed tomography of the chest, which revealed a large fluid collection in the anterior mediastinum. Subsequently, cardiothoracic surgery was consulted and the patient was taken to the operating room for a sternal washout with evacuation of the collection.

SUBMITTER: Rizvi O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7593482 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient with progressive chest pain and dyspnea after aortic valve replacement.

Rizvi Ozair O Sodhi Sarab S Rempell Joshua S JS

Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open 20200702 5

A 45-year-old man presented to the emergency department (ED) with progressive chest pain and dyspnea 3 months after aortic valve replacement. He had been evaluated by his primary care physician and cardiologist and no diagnosis had been made. On arrival, the emergency physicians performed point-of-care ultrasonography, which showed a large hypoechoic collection compressing the right ventricle. This prompted further workup, including a computed tomography of the chest, which revealed a large flui ...[more]

PMID: 33145569

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) treatments include surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Choosing between SAVR and TAVR requires patients to trade-off benefits and risks. The objective of this research was to determine which TAVR and SAVR outcomes patients consider important, collect quantitative data about how patients weigh benefits and risks, and evaluate patients' preferences for SAVR or TAVR. Methods: Patients were recruited from advocacy organization databases. Patients self-reported as being diagnosed with AS, and as either having received AS treatment or as experiencing AS-related physical activity limitations. An online adapted swing weighting (ASW) method - a pairwise comparison of attributes - was used to elicit attribute tradeoffs from 219 patients. Survey data were used to estimate patients' weights for AS treatment attributes, which were incorporated into a quantitative benefit-risk analysis (BRA) to evaluate patients' preferences for TAVR and SAVR. Results: On average, patients put greater value on attributes that favored TAVR than SAVR. Patients' valuation of the lower mortality rate, reduced procedural invasiveness, and quicker time to return to normal quality of life associated with TAVR, offset their valuation of the time over which SAVR has been proven to work. There was substantial heterogeneity in patients' preferences. This was partly explained by age, with differences in preference observed between patients <60 years to those ?60 years. A Monte Carlo Simulation found that 79.5% of patients prefer TAVR. Conclusions: Most AS patients are willing to tolerate sizable increases in clinical risk in exchange for the benefits of TAVR, resulting in a large proportion of patients preferring TAVR to SAVR. Further work should be undertaken to characterize the heterogeneity in preferences for AS treatment attributes. Shared decision-making tools based on attributes important to patients can support patients' selection of the procedure that best meets their needs.

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national coverage determination for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) includes volume requirements for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for hospitals seeking to initiate or continue TAVR programs. Evidence regarding the association between SAVR volume and TAVR outcomes is limited.ObjectiveTo examine the association of hospital SAVR and combined SAVR and TAVR volumes with patient outcomes of TAVR procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort study included 60 538 TAVR procedures performed in 438 hospitals between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, among Medicare beneficiaries.Main outcomes and measuresThe associations between SAVR volume, SAVR and TAVR volumes, and risks of death, death or stroke, and readmissions within 30 days were determined using a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The association between SAVR and SAVR and TAVR volumes and 1-year and 2-year mortality after TAVR procedures was determined using a multivariable proportional hazard model with a robust variance estimator. The associations for procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs were examined.ResultsAmong the 60 538 patients, 29 173 were women and 31 365 were men, with a mean (SD) age of 82.3 (8.0) years. Hospitals with high SAVR volume (mean annual volume, ≥97 per year) were more likely to adopt TAVR early and had a higher growth in TAVR volumes over time (median TAVR volume by hospitals with high SAVR volume and low SAVR volume: year 1, 32 vs 19; year 2, 48 vs 28; year 3, 82 vs 38; year 4, 118 vs 54; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, high hospital SAVR volume alone was not associated with better patient outcomes after TAVR. When hospital TAVR and SAVR volumes were jointly analyzed, patients treated in hospitals with high TAVR volume had lower 30-day mortality after TAVR (high TAVR and low SAVR vs low TAVR and low SAVR: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; high TAVR and high SAVR vs low TAVR and high SAVR: odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95), the effect of which was more pronounced when hospitals also had high SAVR volume. Patients treated in hospitals with high SAVR volume and high TAVR volume had the lowest 30-day mortality (vs hospitals with low SAVR volume and TAVR volume: odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals with high SAVR volume are most likely to be fast adopters of TAVR. Hospital SAVR volume alone is not associated with better TAVR outcomes. Accumulating high volumes of TAVR is associated with lower mortality after TAVR, particularly when hospitals have high SAVR volumes. Hospitals with high caseloads of both SAVR and TAVR are likely to achieve the best outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac surgery for radiation-induced valvular disease is associated with adverse outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used in patients with a history of chest-directed radiation therapy and aortic stenosis (CRT-AS).ObjectivesWe examined outcomes of TAVR compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with CRT-AS.MethodsWe identified 69 patients with CRT-AS who underwent TAVR from January 2012 to September 2018. Operative mortality, postoperative morbidities, and length of hospitalization were compared with 117 contemporaneous patients with CRT-AS who underwent isolated SAVR. Age-adjusted survival was evaluated by means of Cox proportional hazards modeling.ResultsCompared with SAVR patients, TAVR patients were older (mean age 75 ± 11.5 vs 65 ± 11.5 years), with more comorbidities, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, and peripheral vascular disease (all P < 0.050). Operative mortality was 4.3% for SAVR vs 1.4% for TAVR (P = 0.41). Most SAVR deaths (4 of 5) occurred in the intermediate-/high-risk group (Society for Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of operative mortality >3%; P = 0.026). The ratio of observed to expected mortality was better for low-risk SAVR patients and all TAVR patients (0.72 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.86] and 0.24 [95% CI: 0.05-0.51], respectively) compared with intermediate-/high-risk SAVR patients (2.52 [95% CI: 0.26-4.13]). SAVR patients had significantly longer median intensive care unit and overall length of stay and higher blood transfusion requirements but similar rates of stroke and pacemaker implantation.ConclusionsTAVR was associated with excellent in-hospital outcomes and better survival compared with intermediate-/high-risk SAVR in patients with CRT-AS. While SAVR still has a role in low-risk patients or those for whom TAVR is unsuitable for technical or anatomical reasons, TAVR is emerging as the standard of care for intermediate-/high-risk CRT-AS patients.

Dataset Information

Patient with progressive chest pain and dyspnea after aortic valve replacement.

Publications

Patient with progressive chest pain and dyspnea after aortic valve replacement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets