Rationale and design of the Kidney Precision Medicine Project

1. Download : Download high-res image (304KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

The Effect of Left Ventricular Assist Device Therapy on Cardiac Biomarkers: Implications for the Identification of Myocardial Recovery

Purpose of Review

Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy serves as mainstay therapy for bridge to transplantation and destination therapy. Evidence is now mounting on the role of LVAD therapy as bridge to recovery. In the current review, we will summarize the data on biomarkers of myocardial recovery following LVAD implantation.

Recent Findings

Myocardial recovery can occur spontaneously, following pharmacological intervention and in the setting of mechanical circulatory support such as LVAD. Several biomarkers such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), ST2, etc. have been identified and are being used to guide medical therapy in heart failure (HF) patients. However, recent data raised concern that those biomarkers may not be helpful in managing heart failure patients in general, and as such questioned their use in the advanced heart failure population. At this point, the use of biomarker to identify patients with myocardial recovery during LVAD support has not been established, and LVAD explantation remains a decision driven by echocardiographic and hemodynamics improvement.

Summary

HF biomarkers in monitoring myocardial and neurohormonal activation response to mechanical unloading and medical therapy could be valuable. However, at this time, there is inadequate evidence to select a single or a set of HF biomarkers to reliably identify patients bridged to recovery for LVAD explantation.

     

Does the level of amniotic fluid have an effect on the accuracy of sonographic estimated fetal weight at term?

Objective: Controversy exists concerning the impact of amniotic fluid index (AFI) on the accuracy of sonographic estimation of fetal weight (EFW). Thus, we aimed to evaluate whether differences in AFI has an influence on the accuracy of sonographic EFW.

Methods: All term, singleton pregnancies which underwent a sonographic EFW and measurement of AFI within a week from delivery were included. Cases were stratified into three categories according to AFI: (1) Normal AFI (51–249?mm), (2) Oligohydramnios (AFI?≤?50?mm) and (3) Polyhydramnios (AFI?≥?250?mm). Inaccurate EFW was defined if there was more than 15% difference between sonographic EFW and actual birthweight.

Results: Overall, 1746 pregnancies were identified (1096 with normal AFI, 455 with oligohydramnios and 195 with polyhydramnios). Mean AFI was 115.8?±?60?mm, 28.1?±?13?mm and 293?±?35?mm, p?<?0.001, and mean sonographic EFW was 3182.5?±?573?g, 3118.8?±?517?g and 3713.2?±?461?g, p?<?0.001, respectively. Demographic data and gestational age at delivery were similar. Mean birthweight was 3221.7?±?535?g, 3132.5?±?505?g and 3654.1?±?480?g, p?<?0.001, respectively. The rate of inaccurate EFW was similar between the groups (8.4%, 8.7% and 9.7%, p?=?0.19, respectively). On multivariate analysis, AFI was not associated with EFW inaccuracy (OR 1.01, 95% C.I 0.67–1.54, p?=?0.93).

Conclusion: AFI has limited impact on the percentage of errors in sonographic fetal weight estimation a week prior delivery.