Cardionerds: A Cardiology Podcast

CardioNerds Amit Goyal, Dr. Colin Blumenthal, Dr. Kelly Arps and Dr. Justice Oranefo discuss mechanical stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation with Dr. Christopher Ellis, cardiac electrophysiology lab director and director of the left atrial appendage closure program at Vanderbilt University. There has been a significant increase in the number of patients undergoing left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO). This trend is expected to continue with current and upcoming clinical data on this topic. In this episode we dive into the rationale behind LAAO and explore several historical facts. We then proceed to the current state of practice including currently available options, appropriate indications, post op care, and potential complications. Notes were drafted by Dr. Justice Oranefo. Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, student doctor Chelsea Amo Tweneboah. This CardioNerds Atrial Fibrillation series is a multi-institutional collaboration made possible by contributions of stellar fellow leads and expert faculty from several programs, led by series co-chairs, Dr. Kelly Arps and Dr. Colin Blumenthal. This series is supported by an educational grant from the Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer Alliance. All CardioNerds content is planned, produced, and reviewed solely by CardioNerds. We have collaborated with VCU Health to provide CME. Claim free CME here! Disclosures: Dr. Ellis discloses grant or research support from Boston Scientific, Abbott-St Jude, advisor for Atricure and Medtronic. CardioNerds Atrial Fibrillation PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls and Quotes - Atrial Fibrillation: Mechanical Stroke Prevention in Atrial fibrillation Surgical or catheter based left atrial appendage occlusion results in mechanical exclusion of the left atrial appendage, which is the most common source of thrombus leading to embolic events in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Surgical LAAO should be considered in patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2VASC score ≥ 2 undergoing cardiac surgery for other indications. Endocardial LAAO devices such as WATCHMAN FLX and AMULET are approved for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHA2DS2VASC score ≥ 2 and have an appropriate reason to seek a non-drug alternative to anticoagulation therapy. Appropriate patient selection and post-operative anticoagulation and imaging strategy are crucial for prevention and management of complications related to LAAO. Notes - Atrial Fibrillation: Mechanical Stroke Prevention in Atrial fibrillation What are the types of LAAO device? Left atrial appendage occlusion devices can be divided into epicardial closure and endocardial closure. Epicardial techniques/devices include surgical ligation, Atriclip, and Lariat. These techniques require pericardial access (either by open thoracotomy or thoracoscopic access). The goals are complete exclusion and ischemic necrosis of the LAA. LARIAT device Atriclip device Endocardial techniques include WATCHMAN FLX and AMULET devices. These techniques require the use of nitinol-based devices which are delivered into the LAA via a transeptal approach. These devices become endothelialized over time resulting in occlusion of the LAA. AMULET device WATCHMAN FLX Who is the ideal candidate for surgical LAAO? Several studies have evaluated the efficacy of surgical LAA occlusion. The most prominent being the LAOS III trial which randomized 4770 patients with atrial fibrillation and CHA2DS2VASC ≥ 2 undergoing cardiac surgery for other reasons to surgical LAAO vs no LAAO (3,4). The primary outcome of ischemic stroke or systemic embolization occurred in 4.8% of patients in the LAAO group vs 7% of patients in control group over an average ...

It’s another session of CardioNerds Rounds! In these rounds, Dr. Jenna Skowronski (Chief FIT at University of Pittsburgh) and Dr. Natalie Stokes (Formerly FIT at University of Pittsburgh and now General Cardiology Faculty at University of Pittsburgh) join transformational leader, educator and researcher, Dr. Mary Norine Walsh (Director of Heart Failure and Transplantation at Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center and Program Director of AHFT at St. Vincent) to discuss cardio-obstetrics and heart failure cases. Amongst her many accomplishments, Dr. Walsh is past president of the American College of Cardiology, Deputy Editor of JACC Case Reports, and a preeminent voice and thought leader in women’s cardiovascular health. Audio editing by CardioNerds academy intern, Pace Wetstein. This episode is supported with unrestricted funding from Zoll LifeVest. A special thank you to Mitzy Applegate and Ivan Chevere for their production skills that help make CardioNerds Rounds such an amazing success. All CardioNerds content is planned, produced, and reviewed solely by CardioNerds. Case details are altered to protect patient health information. CardioNerds Rounds is co-chaired by Dr. Karan Desai and Dr. Natalie Stokes.  CardioNerds Rounds PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Show notes - Cardio-Obstetrics and Heart Failure Case 1 Synopsis: A woman in her earlier 30s, G1P1, with a history significant for peripartum cardiomyopathy presents to clinic for pre-conception counseling.  Her prior pregnancy was in her late 20s with an uneventful pre-natal course and a spontaneous vaginal delivery at 37w2d.  Two weeks after delivery, she experienced symptoms of heart failure and was found to have a new diagnosis of HFrEF. At that time TTE showed LVEF 30-35%, LVIDd 5.1cm (top normal size), diffuse hypokinesis. At that time, she was diuresed and discharged on metoprolol succinate 25mg po daily and furosemide 20mg po daily.  She had one follow up visit 6 months postpartum and the furosemide was discontinued.  Today in your office, she has NYHA Class I symptoms with no signs of symptoms of congestion. She walks daily and does vigorous exercise 1-2 times per week, while remaining on metoprolol.  Repeat TTE with LVEF 45-50% and similar LV size. She would like to have another child and was referred to you for counseling. Case 1 Rounding Pearls: Dr. Walsh discussed extensively the importance of full GDMT in this patient who was initially undertreated with only a beta blocker.  If patients are breastfeeding, clinicians should consider the addition of ACE-Inhibitor and Spironolactone. Otherwise, if not breastfeeding, they should receive maximally tolerated doses of full GDMT. For more details on medical therapy for Heart Failure during pregnancy and after, refer to this previous CardioNerds Episode with Dr. Julie Damp. Patients with peripartum cardiomyopathy are at highest risk of worsening LV systolic function when they have persistent LV systolic dysfunction from their initial diagnosis. In this circumstance, shared decision making is paramount.  These patients should receive counseling on contraception and risk of pregnancy on worsening LV function, death, & fetal demise. In addition, counseling includes discussing with patients limited options in some states for complete, comprehensive reproductive care, including pregnancy termination. If patients with prior peripartum cardiomyopathy do become pregnant, a team-based approach including cardiologists, maternal fetal medicine, and obstetrics (amongst other team members) is essential to determine care & delivery timing/method.  These patients should also be examined for signs of decompensation throughout the pregnancy, including rales, S3 or a reported history of PND.

The following question refers to Section 3.4 of the 2021 ESC CV Prevention Guidelines. The question is asked by student Dr. Adriana Mares, answered first by Brigham & Women’s medicine intern & Director of CardioNerds Internship Dr. Gurleen Kaur, and then by expert faculty Dr. Michael Wesley Milks. Dr. Milks is a staff cardiologist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center where he serves as the Director of Cardiac Rehabilitation and an associate program director of the cardiovascular fellowship. He specializes in preventive cardiology and is a member of the American College of Cardiology's Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Leadership Council. The CardioNerds Decipher The Guidelines Series for the 2021 ESC CV Prevention Guidelines represents a collaboration with the ACC Prevention of CVD Section, the National Lipid Association, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. Question #20 Ms. Ruma Toid is a 65-year-old African American woman who presents to your clinic in Ohio for routine follow up. She has a history of rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, obesity, and sleep apnea. Her medications include methotrexate and atenolol. Her blood pressure in the office is 120/80 mmHg, heart rate 68 bpm, and oxygen saturation 99% on room air. Recent lipid testing revealed total cholesterol 165 mg/dL, HDL 42 mg/dL, and LDL 118 mg/dL. She was recently advised to talk to her doctor about taking a statin due to her risk factors but in the past has heard negative things about those medications and would like your advice on next steps. Her calculated ASCVD risk score based on the Pooled Cohort Equation is 7%. Which of the following choices would be the next step?AShe is at borderline risk for ASCVD events. A statin is not indicated at this time.BDue to her history of rheumatoid arthritis, her calculated ASCVD risk should be multiplied by 1.5, yielding an ASCVD risk of 10.5% placing her in the intermediate risk category. Moderate intensity statin would be indicated.CWhen other risk factors are present, rheumatoid arthritis is no longer an enhancing risk factor.DStatins are contraindicated when taking methotrexate. Answer #20 ExplanationThe correct answer is B. Due to her history of rheumatoid arthritis, her calculated ASCVD risk should be multiplied by 1.5, yielding an ASCVD risk of 10.5% placing her in the intermediate risk category. Moderate intensity statin would be indicated. Due to her history of rheumatoid arthritis, her calculated ASCVD risk should be multiplied by 1.5, yielding an ASCVD risk of 10.5% placing her in the intermediate risk category. Moderate intensity statin would be indicated. The ESC gives a Class IIa (LOE B) indication to multiply the calculated total CVD risk by a factor of 1.5 in adults with rheumatoid arthritis due to the observed 50% increased CVD risk in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This 50% increase in CVD risk attributed to RA is present beyond traditional risk factors, making answer choice C wrong. Answer A is incorrect because when borderline risk is calculated, one should still look for risk enhancers that could potentially increase ASCVD risk before final determination of statin indication. Answer choice D is false as there is no contraindication to take both methotrexate and statins together. Note that it is appropriate to use the pool cohort equations and American risk thresholds for this patient since she is in America where the PCE was validated (versus using SCORE2 risk model which would be more appropriate for European populations).Main TakeawayInflammatory conditions including rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease increase a person’s risk for ASCVD events. Specifically for rheumatoid arthritis, there is a Class IIa indication to multiply the calculated risk score by 1.5 to account for rheumatoid arthritis as a risk enhancer.

The following question refers to Section 9.5 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.  The question is asked by Keck School of Medicine USC medical student & CardioNerds Intern Hirsh Elhence, answered first by Duke University cardiology fellow and CardioNerds FIT Ambassador Dr. Aman Kansal, and then by expert faculty Dr. Javed Butler. Dr. Butler is an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist, President of the Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Senior Vice President for the Baylor Scott and White Health, and Distinguished Professor of Medicine at the University of Mississippi. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #14 Mrs. Hart is a 70-year-old woman hospitalized for a 2-week course of progressive exertional dyspnea, increasing peripheral edema, and mental status changes. She has a history of coronary artery disease, hypertension, and heart failure for which she takes aspirin, furosemide, carvedilol, lisinopril, and spironolactone. On physical exam, the patient is afebrile, BP is 80/60 mmHg, heart rate is 120 bpm, and respiratory rate is 28 breaths/min with O2 saturation of 92% breathing room air. She is sitting upright and is confused. Jugular venous pulsations are elevated. Cardiac exam reveals an S3 gallop. There is ascites and significant flank edema on abdominal exam. Her lower extremities have 2+ pitting edema to her knees and are cool to touch. Her labs are significant for an elevated serum Creatinine of 3.0 from a baseline of 1.0 mg/dL, lactate of 3.0 mmol/L, and liver enzyme elevation in the 300s U/L. Which of the following is the most appropriate initial treatment? A Increase carvedilol B Start dobutamine C Increase lisinopril D Start nitroprusside Answer #14 Explanation The Correct answer is B – start dobutamine. This patient with progressive congestive symptoms, mental status changes, and signs of hypoperfusion and end-organ dysfunction meets the clinical criteria of cardiogenic shock. The Class 1 recommendation is that in patients with cardiogenic shock, intravenous inotropic support should be used to maintain systemic perfusion and maintain end-organ performance (LOE B-NR). Their broad availability, ease of administration, and clinician familiarity favor such agents as first line when signs of hypoperfusion persist. Interestingly, despite their ubiquitous use for management of cardiogenic shock, there is a lack of robust evidence to suggest the clear benefit of one agent over another.  Therefore, the choice of a specific agent is guided by additional factors including vital signs, concurrent arrhythmias, and availability. For this patient, dobutamine is the only inotrope listed. Although she is tachycardic, her lack of arrhythmia makes dobutamine relatively lower risk and does not outweigh the potential benefits. Choice A – Increase carvedilol – is not correct. Beta-blockers should be continued in HF hospitalization whenever possible; however, in a patient with low cardiac output and signs of shock, beta-blockers should be discontinued due to their negative inotropic effects. Choice C – Increase lisinopril – is not correct. Afterload reduction is reasonable to decrease myocardial oxygen demand. However, given the hypotension and renal dysfunction, increasing lisinopril could be potentially dangerous by fur...

The practice of critical care cardiology relies on the use of invasive hemodynamics, mechanical ventilation, mechanical circulatory support, and other advanced techniques to help our patients recover from critical cardiac illnesses. To facilitate these interventions, it is essential to have a broad understanding of how sedation and analgesia keep our patients comfortable and safe throughout their time in the CICU. In this episode, series co-chair, Dr. Yoav Karpenshif, and CardioNerds co-founder, Dr. Daniel Ambinder, are joined by Dr. Natalie Tapaskar, cardiology fellow and CardioNerds FIT Ambassador from Stanford, and faculty expert, Dr. Chris Domenico, to discuss sedation in the cardiac ICU. Notes were drafted by Dr. Natalie Tapaskar. Audio editing by CardioNerds academy intern, Anusha Gandhi. We discuss the use of analgesics and sedative medications in the cardiac ICU. We dissect three cases of VT storm, heart failure associated cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest. We assess the hemodynamic, arrhythmic, and metabolic effects of opioids and sedatives and delve into the altered pharmacokinetics of these drugs during targeted temperature management. Most importantly, we highlight the use of structured pain and sedation scoring systems and discuss the recognition and management of ICU delirium both from a pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic standpoint. The CardioNerds Cardiac Critical Care Series is a multi-institutional collaboration made possible by contributions of stellar fellow leads and expert faculty from several programs, led by series co-chairs, Dr. Mark Belkin, Dr. Eunice Dugan, Dr. Karan Desai, and Dr. Yoav Karpenshif. Pearls • Notes • References • Production Team CardioNerds Cardiac Critical Care PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls and Quotes - Sedation in the Cardiac ICU with Dr. Christopher Domenico Think about analgesia and sedation as separate entities with management of analgesia first and sedation second. Frequent re-assessment of needs should be performed to reduce ICU delirium and improve long-term outcomes. Fentanyl is generally a good starting point for analgesia in the ICU since it is fast on/fast off, but can stick around for a long time the longer it is used. The choice of bolus or continuous infusion opioids depends on the clinical scenario and personal/institutional preference. Remember to administer bolus doses that are 50-100% of the hourly continuous infusion dose to reach steady state faster. When managing refractory VT storm with sedative agents (propofol, benzodiazepines and/or dexmedetomidine), you should target the deepest level of sedation necessary to suppress sympathetic drive. For cardiogenic shock patients, the choice of sedative agent is a nuanced decision. Think about etomidate first for intubation as it has the least cardiovascular and hemodynamic impact. And remember the propofol trifecta: negative inotropy, direct vasodilation, and bradycardia! Pharmacokinetics are disrupted during targeted temperature management, thus be weary of overly sedating patients due to reduced drug clearance. Show notes - Sedation in the Cardiac ICU with Dr. Christopher Domenico How do we initiate analgesics and sedatives? Analgesia first and sedation second! Analgesia: think about how to reduce a patient’s painEveryone has a different pain tolerance and critically ill patients can have moderate to severe pain at baseline. Metrics to assess pain include self-reported scales, behavioral scales, facial expressions, extremity movement, compliance with the ventilator, tachycardia, tachypnea, and hypertension. Sedation: think about how to reduce a patient’s agitation or anxietyThe target depth of sedation depends on the clinical scenario.For example,

The following question refers to Section 3.2 of the 2021 ESC CV Prevention Guidelines. The question is asked by CardioNerds Academy Intern, student Dr. Hirsh Elhence, answered first by Ohio State University Cardiology Fellow Dr. Alli Bigeh, and then by expert faculty Dr. Eugene Yang. Dr. Yang is professor of medicine of the University of Washington where he is medical director of the Eastside Specialty Center and the co-Director of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program. Dr. Yang is former Governor of the ACC Washington Chapter and current chair of the ACC Prevention of CVD Section.  The CardioNerds Decipher The Guidelines Series for the 2021 ESC CV Prevention Guidelines represents a collaboration with the ACC Prevention of CVD Section, the National Lipid Association, and Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association. Question #19 True or False: A 70-year-old male has an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk (using SCORE2-OP) of 7.5% which confers a very high CVD risk and necessitates treatment with a statin.  TRUE  FALSE  Answer #19 Explanation   FALSE – CVD risk thresholds for risk factor treatment are higher in apparently healthy people 70 years and older in order to prevent overtreatment in the elderly. A 10-year CVD risk ≥15% is considered “very high risk” for individuals ≥70 years of age (compared to a ≥7.5% cut-off for “very high risk” in younger patients <50 years old). For these patients, treatment of ASCVD risk factors, including lipid-lowering medications, is recommended (class IIb).  Lifetime benefit of treatment in terms of time gained free of CVD is lower in older people. The SCORE2-OP algorithm estimates 5-year and 10-year fatal and non-fatal CVD events adjusted for competing risks of non-CVD mortality. Treatment and risk stratification should (as with all patients) be individualized.   For patient >70 years of age, a 10-year CVD risk of 7.5 to <15% is considered “high risk”, and treatment of risk factors should be considered taking CVD risk modifiers, frailty, lifetime treatment benefit, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and patient preference into account.   For patient >70 years of age, a 10-year CVD risk of <7.5 is considered “low-to-moderate risk” and would generally not qualify for risk factor treatment unless one or several risk modifiers are present.   Smoking cessation, lifestyle recommendations and a SBP <160 mmHg are recommended for all.  Main Takeaway  CVD risk assessment for patients 70-years and older is estimated using the SCORE2-OP algorithm. A predicted 10-year CVD risk score of ≥15% confers a very high CVD risk, however, this it is a class IIb indication to initiate/intensify lipid lowering therapies in these patients. Decision should be individualized and based on benefits vs risk assessment.  Guideline Loc.  3.2.3.5  CardioNerds Decipher the Guidelines - 2021 ESC Prevention Series CardioNerds Episode Page CardioNerds Academy Cardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal Club Subscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter! Check out CardioNerds SWAG! Become a CardioNerds Patron!

The following question refers to Section 9.1 of the 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure.  The question is asked by Keck School of Medicine USC medical student & CardioNerds Intern Hirsh Elhence, answered first by Duke University cardiology fellow and CardioNerds FIT Ambassador Dr. Aman Kansal, and then by expert faculty Dr. Anu Lala. Dr. Lala is an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist, associate professor of medicine and population health science and policy, Director of Heart Failure Research, and Program Director for the Advanced Heart Failure and Transplant fellowship training program at Mount Sinai. Dr. Lala is deputy editor for the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Dr. Lala has been a champion and role model for CardioNerds. She has been a PI mentor for the CardioNerds Clinical Trials Network and continues to serve in the program’s leadership. She is also a faculty mentor for this very 2022 heart failure decipher the guidelines series. The Decipher the Guidelines: 2022 AHA / ACC / HFSA Guideline for The Management of Heart Failure series was developed by the CardioNerds and created in collaboration with the American Heart Association and the Heart Failure Society of America. It was created by 30 trainees spanning college through advanced fellowship under the leadership of CardioNerds Cofounders Dr. Amit Goyal and Dr. Dan Ambinder, with mentorship from Dr. Anu Lala, Dr. Robert Mentz, and Dr. Nancy Sweitzer. We thank Dr. Judy Bezanson and Dr. Elliott Antman for tremendous guidance. Enjoy this Circulation 2022 Paths to Discovery article to learn about the CardioNerds story, mission, and values. Question #13 Mrs. Hart is a 63-year-old woman with a history of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF 20-25%) presenting with 5 days of worsening dyspnea and orthopnea. She takes carvedilol 12.5mg BID, sacubitril-valsartan 24-46mg BID, empagliflozin 10mg daily, and furosemide 40mg daily and reports that she has been able to take all her medications. What is the initial management for Mrs. H? A Assess her degree of congestion and hypoperfusion B Search for precipitating factors C Evaluate her overall trajectory D All of the above E None of the above Answer #13 Explanation The correct answer is D – all of the above.   Choice A is correct because in patients hospitalized with heart failure, the severity of congestion and adequacy of perfusion should be assessed to guide triage and initial therapy (Class 1, LOE C-LD). Congestion can be assessed by using the clinical exam to gauge right and left-sided filling pressures (e.g., elevated JVP, S3, edema) which are usually proportional in decompensation of chronic HF with low EF; however, up to 1 in 4 patients have a mismatch between right- and left-sided filling pressures. Hypoperfusion can be suspected from narrow pulse pressure and cool extremities, intolerance to neurohormonal antagonists, worsening renal function, altered mental status, and/or an elevated serum lactate. For more on the bedside evaluation of heart failure, enjoy Episode #142 – The Role of the Clinical Examination in Patients With Heart Failure – with Dr. Mark Drazner. Choice B, searching for precipitating factors is also correct. In patients hospitalized with HF, the common precipitating factors and the overall patient trajectory should be assessed to guide appropriate therapy (Class 1, LOE C-LD). Common precipitating factors include ischemic and nonischemic causes, such as acute coronary syndromes, atrial fibrillation and other arrhythmias, uncontrolled HTN, other cardiac disease (e.g., endocarditis), acute infections, anemia, thyroid dysfunction, non-adherence to medications or new medications. When initial clinical assessment does not suggest congestion or hypoperfusion, symptoms of HF may be a result of transient ischemia, arrhythmias, or noncardiac disease such as chronic pulmonary disease or pneumonia,

CardioNerds (Amit and Dan) join Dr. Maria Pabon (cardiology fellow), Dr. Kevin Bersell (cardiology fellow), Dr. Saad Sultan Ghumman (interventional cardiology fellow), and Dr. Rhanderson Cardoso (cardiovascular imaging fellow) from Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Together, they explore a complex case of STEMI that was further complicated by ventricular free wall rupture. Additionally, Dr. Ajar Kochar, Program Director for Interventional Cardiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital, provides an insightful "ECPR" segment, adding a unique perspective to the case. Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, student doctor Chelsea Amo Tweneboah. This is the case of a patient who presented with STEMI and was found to have a moderate pericardial effusion with echogenic material within the pericardial space concerning for thrombus. Urgent CTA/CT surgery was engaged due to concern for dissection, but no evidence of dissection, rupture or intramural hematoma was found. The patient underwent an urgent pericardiocentesis which yielded 350cc of hemorrhagic fluid, leading to an improvement in hemodynamic status. A coronary angiogram was performed which showed a 100% thrombotic occlusion of OM 1, the culprit lesion for the STEMI. Due to the possibility of a delayed STEMI and high suspicion for mechanical complication of MI, aspirin and IV cangrelor were chosen as the preferred antiplatelet strategy. However, cangrelor was held and cardiac surgery was consulted, as LV free wall rupture was suspected. The patient underwent urgent repair of the LV free wall rupture, with an uneventful post-op recovery and discharge on day 8 to cardiac rehab. CardioNerds is collaborating with Radcliffe Cardiology and US Cardiology Review journal (USC) for a ‘call for cases’, with the intention to co-publish high impact cardiovascular case reports, subject to double-blind peer review. Case Reports that are accepted in USC journal and published as the version of record (VOR), will also be indexed in Scopus and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). CardioNerds Case Reports PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Case Media Pearls - When Infarction Brings the Walls Down - Brigham and Women’s Hospital In the era of primary PCI, mechanical complications of MI are relatively rare. Timely recognition using multi-modality imaging and prompt surgical intervention can result in favorable outcomes. An approach that involves a Heart Team can be advantageous in optimizing outcomes in such complex cases. Show Notes - When Infarction Brings the Walls Down - Brigham and Women’s Hospital Incidence of post AMI LV free wall rupture: 0.1-1% Risk factors for LV Free wall Rupture: Older age Female sex Prior HTN 1st lateral or Anterior Wall MI Protective factors towards free wall rupture: LV hypertrophy CHF Hx of prior infarcts Chronic ischemic heart disease Early use of beta blockers post MI Timely intervention Incidence of Mortality associated with mechanical rupture related to AMI: 8-10% When to suspect a mechanical complication of AMI: AMI with shock/hypotension New murmur New pericardial effusion > 10mm on bedside echo Other etiologies that can cause free wall rupture: Trauma Cardiac infection Aortic dissection Cardiac tumors Infiltrative diseases Iatrogenic from PCI or surgical procedures References - When Infarction Brings the Walls Down - Brigham and Women’s Hospital Varghese S, Ohlow MA. Left ventricular free wall rupture in myocardial infarction: A retrospective analysis from a single tertiary center. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2019 Jan-Dec;8:2048004019896692. doi: 10.1177/2048004019896692. PMID: 31970072. Pineda-De Paz, D.O.,

CardioNerds (Dr. Amit Goyal), Dr. Sonu Abraham (CardioNerds Ambassador from Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA) discuss left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) and the implications of renal dysfunction with Dr. Brian Houston and Dr. Nisha Bansal. This episode will focus on the intersection of left ventricular assist devices and renal dysfunction. Patients with a combination of heart failure and renal dysfunction overall have a guarded prognosis and their management poses unique challenges to the clinician. We initially discuss the basics of an LVAD and general approach to LVAD candidacy evaluation. We then discuss specific implications of acute kidney injury, presence of preexisting CKD, and end stage renal disease in patients with/being considered for an LVAD. Risk factor identification and prognostication allows for appropriate selection of the right candidates for an LVAD in the context of renal disease. Dr. Brian Houston is the Director of the Mechanical Circulatory Support program at Medical University of South Carolina. Dr. Nisha Bansal is an Associate Professor and the Arthur Stach Family Endowed Professor in the Division of Nephrology, an investigator at the Kidney Research Institute, the Director of Nephrology Clinical and Research Education, and the Director of the Kidney-Heart Service at the University of Washington. Notes were drafted by Dr. Sonu Abraham and episode audio was edited by student Dr. Chelsea Amo-Tweneboah. Check out the CardioNerds Failure Heart Success Series Page for more heart success episodes and content! CardioNerds Heart Success Series PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls - Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Renal Dysfunction End stage renal disease (CKD on dialysis) is considered an absolute contraindication for LVAD implantation. Select young patients who are being considered for heart-kidney transplantation in the near future may be candidates for an LVAD as a bridge to heart-kidney transplantation. LVAD implantation can improve kidney function in the short term in patients with AKI primarily caused by cardio-renal syndrome. Patients with pre-existing CKD (not dialysis dependent) have a greater risk of developing AKI after LVAD implantation.   Several dialysis modalities including in-center hemodialysis, home hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis are available for LVAD patients. However, there are several challenges associated with each modality. An AV graft is a useful vascular access option in LVAD patients undergoing hemodialysis due to a lower risk of infection and ease of immediate use. Causes for anemia in patients with an LVAD and renal dysfunction include anemia of chronic disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and pump thrombosis leading to hemolysis. Show notes - Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Renal Dysfunction Notes: (drafted by Dr. Sonu Abraham) What is a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) and what are its components? An LVAD supports circulation by unloading the left ventricle and providing increased cardiac output to help support organ perfusion. Use in properly selected patients is associated with improved quality of life and increased survival. The current iteration of LVADs offer continuous flow, as opposed to the older versions which employed pulsatile flow. Components of the LVAD: Inflow cannula (sucks blood from the LV) Pump Outflow cannula (dumps blood into the aorta) Percutaneous driveline Electrical controller How is a patient evaluated for LVAD candidacy? The 2 main questions to be answered during the evaluation of a patient for an LVAD are:             1. Are they sick enough? Do they have end stage heart failure?             2. Do we expect the benefits of an LVAD to outweigh the risks? ...

CardioNerds (Amit and Dan) join Dr. Khaled Abdelrahman, Dr. Gurleen Kaur, and Dr. Danny Pipilas from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Residency Program for Italian food and cannolis at the North End in Boston as they discuss the case of an elderly man with primary cardiac lymphoma. They review an approach to intracardiac masses, discuss advantages and disadvantages of various imaging modalities for the evaluation of intracardiac masses, and also delve into anthracycline toxicity. The E-CPR segment is provided by Dr. Ron Blankstein, Associate Director of the Cardiovascular Imaging Program and Director of Cardiac Computed Tomography at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Audio editing by CardioNerds Academy Intern, student doctor Akiva Rosenzveig. A 76-year-old man with a history of hyperlipidemia presented with one month of progressively worsening fatigue, weight loss, and dyspnea on exertion. Physical exam was notable for a 3/6 systolic murmur at the left upper sternal border, a flopping sound along the sternum heard throughout the cardiac cycle, and JVP elevated to the level of the mandible. TTE revealed a large heterogeneous echodensity in the right ventricular (RV) free wall that extended into the pericardium and into the RV myocardium with mobile components in the RV cavity and obstruction of the RV outflow tract. Nongated CT chest showed a solid nodule in the periphery of the left lower lung lobe. Gated cardiac CTA revealed a large heterogenous mass in the right atrioventricular groove that encased the proximal thoracic aorta and pulmonary artery and invaded the RV myocardium and RV outflow tract along with a large pericardial effusion. On cardiac MRI, the mass was isointense to the myocardium on T1-weighted images, hyperintense on T2-weighted images, and had heterogenous enhancement on late gadolinium enhancement images. Overall, the imaging findings were highly suspicious for cardiac lymphoma which was confirmed with biopsy of the lung nodule; pathology showed a large B cell lymphoma. The patient was treated with R-CHOP therapy (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), and TTE after 6 cycles of chemotherapy demonstrated resolution of the RV mass. CardioNerds is collaborating with Radcliffe Cardiology and US Cardiology Review journal (USC) for a ‘call for cases’, with the intention to co-publish high impact cardiovascular case reports, subject to double-blind peer review. Case Reports that are accepted in USC journal and published as the version of record (VOR), will also be indexed in Scopus and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). CardioNerds Case Reports PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Case Media 1.  There is a large homogeneous mass in the right atrioventricular groove that extends anterior to the right ventricular outflow tract, pulmonary artery, and ascending aorta, measuring up to 9.4 x 7.1 cm (axial) x 13 cm (craniocaudal). The mass encases the proximal thoracic aorta and pulmonary artery. The mass invades the right ventricular myocardium, the right ventricular outflow tract, the pulmonary artery, and proximal main pulmonary artery. There is severe stenosis of the right ventricular outflow tract due to obstruction by the mass. The mass encases the right coronary artery, without compression of the artery. There is enhancement of this mass on delayed contrast imaging. Collectively, these findings suggest cardiac lymphoma. 2.  There is a large pericardial effusion, circumferential, measuring up to 2.2 cm adjacent to the right atrium and up to 2.3 cm anterior to the intraventricular septum. There is pericardial enhancement, indicative of pericardial inflammation. 3.  This study was not optimized for the assessment of the coronary arteries. However,