| Literature DB >> 29197471 |
Vikas Singh1, Rodrigo Mendirichaga2, Ghanshyambhai T Savani3, Alex Rodriguez4, Vanessa Blumer4, Sammy Elmariah5, Ignacio Inglessis-Azuaje5, Igor Palacios5.
Abstract
Native heart endomyocardial biopsy (NH-EMB) is an infrequently performed procedure. The objective of this study is to describe utilization trends, indications, and complications associated with NH-EMB in the United States and compare them with transplanted heart endomyocardial biopsy (TH-EMB). Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample database, we identified 71,105 adult patients undergoing EMB in the inpatient setting in participating hospitals from 2002 to 2014. A total of 20,770 (29%) were performed on NHs (mean age 52.2 ± 15.3, 61% men). Approximately half of patients were white and mean Charlson co-morbidity index was 1.97 ± 1.6. Common indications for NH-EMB included a suspected primary cardiomyopathy (disorder confined to the myocardium), heart failure without cardiogenic shock, and acute myocarditis. Less common indications included heart failure with cardiogenic shock, unexplained heart failure with ventricular tachycardia or high-degree atrioventricular block, and cardiac neoplasms. Complications included pericardial effusion (3.8%), third-degree atrioventricular block (2.7%), vascular complications (1.9%), and deep venous thrombosis (3.5%), in others. Predictors of complications included presence of a cardiac malignant neoplasm, use of hemodynamic support, heart failure with ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and female gender. Compared with NH-EMB, TH-EMB was associated with lower rates of pericardial effusion, third-degree atrioventricular block, ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring cardioversion, and higher rates of deep venous thrombosis, infections, and pneumothorax. NH-EMB utilization is low in the United States and constitutes less than 1/3 of all EMBs performed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29197471 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2017.10.021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Cardiol ISSN: 0002-9149 Impact factor: 2.778