Deepa Mandale

Background: Conduction abnormality post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains clinically significant and usually requires chronic pacing. The effect of right ventricular (RV) pacing post-TAVI on clinical outcomes warrants further studies. Methods: We identified 147 consecutive patients who required chronic RV pacing after a successful TAVI procedure and propensity-matched these patients according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk score to a control group of patients that did not require RV pacing post-TAVI. We evaluated routine echocardiographic measurements and performed offline speckle-tracking strain analysis for the purpose of this study on transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) images performed at 9 to 18 months post-TAVI. Results: The final study population comprised 294 patients (pacing group n = 147 and non-pacing group n = 147), with a mean age of 81 ± 7 years, 59% male; median follow-up was 354 days. There were more baseline conduction abnormalities in the pacing group compared to the non-pacing group (56.5% vs. 41.5%. p = 0.01). Eighty-eight patients (61.6%) in the pacing group required RV pacing due to atrioventricular (AV) conduction block post-TAVI. The mean RV pacing burden was 44% in the pacing group. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was similar at follow-up in the pacing vs. non-pacing groups (57 ± 13.0%, 59 ± 11% p = 0.31); however, LV global longitudinal strain (−12.7 ± 3.5% vs. −18.8 ± 2.7%, p < 0.0001), LV apical strain (−12.9 ± 5.5% vs. 23.2 ± 9.2%, p < 0.0001), and mid-LV strain (−12.7 ± 4.6% vs. −18.7 ± 3.4%, p < 0.0001) were significantly worse in the pacing vs. non-pacing groups. Conclusions: Chronic RV pacing after the TAVI procedure is associated with subclinical LV systolic dysfunction within 1.5 years of follow-up.

Objectives: The performed hand-held echocardiography (HHE) was evaluated and interpreted by trained advanced practice providers (APPs) on hospitalized CHF patients for image quality and interpretation by comparing with expert echocardiographer and SE findings. Background: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with increased hospital admissions and mortality. While a standard echocardiogram (SE) is the gold standard for cardiac assessment, it is not readily available. Hospitalized CHF patients require rapid assessment for expedited treatment. Methods: Over 6 months, five trained APPs performed HHE on hospitalized CHF patients and interpreted: (a) left ventricular (LV) size, (b) LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and (c) right atrial pressure (RAP). The study echocardiographer reviewed and blindly interpreted the HHE images and compared them with APPs and SE findings. Kappa statistics determined the degree of agreement between APPs and the study echocardiographer’s interpretation of the HHE images and SE. Results: A total of 80 CHF patients (age 73 ± 14 years, 58% males; LVEF (by SE) 45 ± 19%; 36.3% body mass indexes ≥ 30 kg/m²) were enrolled. HHE interpretation by APPs had a good agreement for LVEF (kappa 0.79) with the study echocardiographer and SE (kappa 0.74) and a good agreement for RAP (kappa 0.67) with the study echocardiographer. The correlation between the absolute LVEF interpretation by the study echocardiographer on HHE and SE was r = 0.88 (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Trained APPs obtained diagnostic-quality HHE images and interpreted the LV function and RAP in CHF patients in good agreement with the study echocardiographer. LVEF by HHE correlated with LVEF by SE. Our study suggests trained APPs can use HHE to evaluate LVEF and RAP in CHF patients, leading to expedited and optimized treatment.

Objectives: Evaluate hand-held echocardiography (HHE) performed and interpreted by trained Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) on hospitalized CHF patients for image quality and interpretation, by comparing against expert echocardiographer and SE findings. Background: Congestive heart failure (CHF) is associated with increased hospital admissions and mortality. While standard echocardiogram (SE) is the gold standard for cardiac assessment, it is not readily available. Hospitalized CHF patients require rapid assessment for expedited treatment. Methods: Over 6 months, five trained APPs performed HHE on hospitalized CHF patients and interpreted: a) Left ventricular (LV) size, b) LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and c) right atrial pressure (RAP). The study echocardiographer reviewed and blindly interpreted HHE images and compared with APPs and SE findings. Kappa-statistics determined the degree of agreement between APPs and study echocardiographer interpretation of HHE images and SE. Results: 80 CHF patients [age 73±14 years, 58% males; LVEF (by SE) 45±19%; 36.3% body mass indexes ≥30 kg/m2] were enrolled. HHE interpretation by APPs had good agreement for LVEF (kappa 0.79) with study echocardiographer and SE (kappa 0.74), and good agreement for RAP (kappa 0.67) with study echocardiographer. Correlation between absolute LVEF interpretation by study echocardiographer on HHE and SE was r=0.88 (p<0.0001). Conclusions: Trained APPs obtained diagnostic-quality HHE images and interpreted LV function and RAP in CHF patients, with good agreement with the study echocardiographer. LVEF by HHE correlated with LVEF by SE. Our study suggests trained APPs can use HHE to evaluate LVEF and RAP in CHF patients leading to expedited and optimized treatment.