Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Tetralogy of Fallot: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BackgroundAlthough there are robust data about the pathophysiology and prognostic implications of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction in patients with acquired heart disease, similar prognostic data about LV systolic dysfunction are sparse in the tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) population. The purpose of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of all studies that assessed the relationship between LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and cardiovascular adverse events (CAEs) defined as death, aborted sudden death, or sustained ventricular tachycardia.MethodsWe used random-effects models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsOf the 1,809 citations, 7 studies with 2,854 patients (age 28 ± 4 years) were included. During 5.6 ± 3.4 years' follow-up, there were 82 deaths, 17 aborted sudden cardiac deaths, and 56 sustained ventricular tachycardia events. Overall, CAEs occurred in 5.1% (144 patients). As a continuous variable, LVEF was a predictor of CAE (HR 1.29, 95% CI, 1.09-1.53, P = 0.001) per 5% decrease in LVEF. Similarly, LVEF < 40% was also a predictor of CAE (HR 3.22, 95% CI, 2.16-4.80, P < 0.001).ConclusionsLV systolic dysfunction was an independent predictor of CAE, and we observed a 30% increase in the risk of CAE for every 5% decrease in LVEF, and a 3-fold increase in the risk of CAE in patients with LVEF <40% compared with other patients. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating LV systolic function in clinical risk stratification of patients with TOF and the need to explore new treatment options to address this problem.     

Why is the age-standardized incidence of low-trauma fractures rising in many elderly populations?

Low-trauma fractures of elderly people are a major public health burden worldwide, and as the number and mean age of older adults in the population continue to increase, the number of fractures is also likely to increase. Epidemiologically, however, an additional concern is that, for unknown reasons, the age-standardized incidence (average individual risk) of fracture has also risen in many populations during the recent decades. Possible reasons for this rise include a birth cohort effect, deterioration in the average bone strength by time, and increased average risk of (serious) falls. Literature provides evidence that the rise is not due to a birth cohort effect, whereas no study shows whether bone fragility has increased during this relatively short period of time. This osteoporosis hypothesis could, however, be tested if researchers would now repeat the population measurements of bone mass and density that were made in the late 1980s and the 1990s. If such studies proved that women's and men's age-standardized mean values of bone mass and density have declined over time, the osteoporosis hypothesis would receive scientific support. The third explanation is based on the hypothesis that the number and/or severity of falls has risen in elderly populations during the recent decades. Although no study has directly tested this hypothesis, a great deal of indirect epidemiologic evidence supports this contention. For example, the age-standardized incidence of fall-induced severe head injuries, bruises and contusions, and joint distortions and dislocations has increased among elderly people similarly to the low-trauma fractures. The fall hypothesis could also be tested in the coming years because the 1990s saw many research teams reporting age- and sex-specific incidences of falling for elderly populations, and the same could be done now to provide data comparing the current incidence rates of falls with the earlier ones.     

McBurney's point--fact or fiction?

Anthropometric measurements were performed on 51 normal, supine, barium enema examinations to determine the position of the lower pole of the caecum and the base of the appendix relative to palpable bony landmarks (the anterior superior iliac spine and the symphysis pubis). Four quadrants were defined (iliac, umbilical, inguinal and pelvic) by the intersection of the right lateral line and the interspinous line (the line joining the left and right anterior superior iliac spines). The position of the lower pole of the caecum was iliac in 12%, inguinal in 37%, and pelvic in 51%. The appendix or appendix stump was visualised on 53% of the barium examinations. The position of the appendix was iliac in 15%, umbilical in 15%, inguinal in 11%, and pelvic in 59%. The positions of the lower pole of the caecum and base of the appendix are lower and more medial than previously described. 70% of appendices were found to lie inferior to the interspinous line, contrary to established surgical teaching, which assumes McBurney's point to be the surface landmark for the appendix.