My elderly patient developed a new left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Is this a frequent occurrence?

Yes, conduction abnormalities, particularly left bundle branch block (LBBB), frequently complicate transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis reported new-onset LBBB following TAVR and persisting at hospital discharge in 13.3%-37% of patients1; the incidence may be higher or lower depending on the type of prosthesis used.2,3 In the same systematic review, new-onset LBBB was associated with a higher risk of permanent pacemaker placement (PPI) and cardiac death during 1-year followup.   In another study, persistence of LBBB post-TAVR without PPM placement was associated with an increased risk of syncope, complete AV node block, and PPI, but not overall mortality.4

The underlying anatomy of the conduction system may help explain post-TAVR conduction complications. The AV node is located adjacent to the membranous septum, closely associated with the subaortic region and LV outflow track, giving rise to the LBB.5 Protrusion of TAVR prostheses into the LV outflow tract, the mechanical injury occurring during the predilation or the positioning of the valve, and potential trauma to the conduction system by the catheters and guidewires used in TAVR may all contribute to these complications.3,5

References

  1. Regueiro A, Altisent OA, Del Trigo M, et al. Impact of new-onset left bundle branch block and periprocedural permanent pacemaker implanation on clinical outomces in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016;9:e003635. http://circinterventions.ahajournals.org/content/9/5/e003635.long
  2. Nazif, T.M., Williams, M.R., Hahn, R.T., Kapadia, S., Babaliaros, V. et al. Clinical implications of new-onset left bundle branch block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis of the PARTNER experience. Eur. Heart J. 2014;21:1599-1607. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24179072
  3. Bourantas CV, Serruys PW. Evolution of transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Res 2014;114:1037-1051. http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/114/6/1037
  4. Urena, M., Mok, M., Serra, V., Dumont, E., Nombela-Franco, L. et al. Predictive factors and long-term clinical consequences of persistent left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve implantation with a balloon-expandable valve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1743-1752. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23040577
  5. Piazza, N., Jaegere, P., Schultz, C., Becker, A.E., Serruys, P.W., Anderson, R.H. Anatomy of the aortic valve complex and its implications for transcatheter implantation of the aortic valve. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;1:74-81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20031657

Contributed by Salvatore D’Amato MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA

My elderly patient developed a new left bundle branch block following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Is this a frequent occurrence?

Can Salmonella enterocolitis predispose to inflammatory bowel disease?

Yes, enteric pathogens such as Salmonella can predispose patients to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) through several potential mechanisms: 1

  • Causing permanent changes in the intestinal microbiota
  • Altering the epithelial barrier in the gut
  • Altering the interaction between the body’s immune system and the intestines

More specifically, Salmonella utilizes oxidized endogenous sulfur compounds released during acute intestinal inflammation to outgrow the fermentative microbiota of the colon.2  In addition, the neutrophil response to Salmonella infection can alter the constituent microbiome.3 Salmonella also modifies the tight junctions in the intestinal epithelium as it invades, thus activating the immune system (particularly toll-like-receptors), and creating a pro-inflammatory state with structural loss of the intestinal mucosa. 4 Lastly, Salmonella promotes cytokine release and neutrophil migration through pathogen recognition receptors, leaving the intestine in a pro-inflammatory state even following resolution of the infection. 1

Keep in mind that initial Salmonella infection may also mimic IBD, as it causes diffuse lesions in the colon similar to ulcerative colitis, and may cause ileitis in some patients. Stool cultures and biopsies of the colonic mucosa should help differentiate IBD from Salmonella infection. 5

 

References

  1. Schultz BM, Paduro CA, Salazar GA, et al. A potential role of Salmonella infection in the onset of inflammatory bowel diseases. Front Immunol 2017;8:191. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329042/pdf/fimmu-08-00191.pdf
  2. Winter SE, Baumler AJ. A breathtaking feat: to compete with the gut microbiota, Salmonella drives its host to provide a respiratory electron acceptor. Gut Microbes 2011;2:58-60. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3225798/pdf/gmic0201_0058.pdf
  3. Gill N, Ferreira RB, Antunes LC, et al. Neutrophil elastase alters the murine gut microbiota resulting in enhanced Salmonella colonization. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e49646. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0049646
  4. Bueno SM, Riquelme S, Riedel CA, et al. Mechanisms used by virulent Salmonella to impair dendritic cell function and evade adaptive immunity. Immunology 2012;137:28-36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22703384
  5. De Hertogh G, Geboes K. Crohn’s disease and infections: a complex relationship. MedGenMed 2004;6:14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1435589

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contributed by Yasmin Islam MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Can Salmonella enterocolitis predispose to inflammatory bowel disease?

My patient with ulcerative colitis has had colectomy. Can she still get C. difficile infection?

Yes! Although a common cause of colitis, an increasing number of reports in the literature suggest C. difficile can cause enteritis as well.Antibiotic use is a major risk factor in most reports, with nearly one-half of the cases reported in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, many post-colectomy. 1-3

Mortality of C. difficile enteritis based on the first 83 cases in the literature appears to be 23%,1 but as high as 60%-83% depending on the report!2 Its diagnosis post-colectomy requires a high index of suspicion, as patients may not complain of “diarrhea” with chronically loose stools in the ileostomy bag.  Be particularly on the lookout for C. difficile enteritis in these patients when there is increased stool output, fever, hypotension, and/or leukocytosis2, and when in doubt, send a stool specimen from the ileostomy bag for C. difficile testing.

Although the pathophysiology of C. difficile enteritis is not fully understood, few observations are particularly intriguing: 

  • Small bowel mucosa may be colonized by C. difficile in about 3% of the population, potentially serving as a reservoir.2
  • Patients with ileostomy may develop a metaplasia of the terminal end mimicking colonic environment.4  
  • Exposure of rabbit ileum to C. difficile toxin A also causes significant epithelial necrosis with destruction of villi and neutrophil infiltration.5

 

References

  1. Dineen SP, Bailey SH, Pham TH, et al. Clostridium difficile enteritis: a report of two cases and systematic literature review. World J Gastrointest Surg 2013;5:37-42. https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v5/i3/37.htm
  2. Boland E, Thompson JS. Fulminant Clostridium difficile enteritis after proctocolectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Gastroenterology Research and Practice 2008; 2008: Article ID 985658. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633454/pdf/GRP2008-985658.pdf
  3. Freiler JF, Durning SJ, Ender PT. Clostridium difficile small bowel enteritis occurring after total colectomy. Clin Infect Dis 2001;33:1429-31. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/333b/d84978cfc4ac8fd21a15bc8fd26ff3160387.pdf
  4. Apel R, Cohen Z, Andrews CW, et al. Prospective evaluation of early morphological changes in pelvic ileal pouches. Gastroenterology 1994;107:435-43. http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/0016-5085(94)90169-4/pdf
  5. Triadafilopoulos G, Pothoulakis C, Obrien MJ, et al. Differential effects of Clostridium difficile toxins A and B on rabbit ileum. Gastroenterology 1987;93:273-279. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3596162
My patient with ulcerative colitis has had colectomy. Can she still get C. difficile infection?

In my patient with sepsis, is administration of proper antibiotics within an hour compared to 1-3 hours associated with better outcome?

The weight of the evidence based on observational studies suggests that the earlier the antibiotics are administered even within the first 3 hrs of the diagnosis of sepsis,  the better the patient outcome.

A 2017 study analyzing data from 37 studies (primarily observational) involving ~20,000 patients with severe sepsis and/or shock found a 10% increase in hospital mortality for every 1 hr delay in initiation of antibiotic therapy1. Two multicenter studies (1 in Pennsylvania2 and another in California3) and a New York State data base study involving patients with severe sepsis or septic shock4 similarly reported decreased survival with each 1- hr delay in antibiotic therapy. Another study of patients with severe sepsis found that each hour delay in first antibiotic dose administration was associated with an 8% increased risk of progression to shock5.

Despite the emphasis on the timing of the first dose of antibiotics, let’s not forget that the second dose of antibiotics should also be given on time in sepsis; a >25% delay is associated with increased mortality, length of stay and requirement for mechanical ventilation6.

So, yes, antibiotics should be given within 3 hours of diagnosis of sepsis, but within an hour followed by a timely second dose is even better!

Final Pearl: Did you know that sepsis is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US and contributes to 1 in every 2 to 3 hospital deaths7?

 

References

  1. Kalil AC, Johnson DW, Lisco SJ, et al. Early goal-directed therapy for sepsis: a novel solution for discordant survival outcomes in clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2017;45:607-14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28067711
  2. Seymour CW, Kahn JM, Martin-Gill, et al. Delays from first medical contact to antibiotic administration for sepsis. Crit Care Med 2017;45:759-65. https://insights.ovid.com/pubmed?pmid=28234754
  3. Liu VX, Fielding-Singh V, Greene JD, et al. Th timing of early antibiotics and hospital mortality in sepsis. Am J Respir Crit care Med 2017; 196;858-63. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28345952
  4. Seymour CW, Gesten F, Prescott HC, et al. Time to treatment and mortality during mandated emergency care for sepsis. N Engl J Med 2017;376:2235-44. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1703058
  5. Whiles BB, Deis AS, Simpson SQ. Increased time to initial antimicrobial administration is associated with progression to septic shock in severe sepsis patients. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:623-29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28169944
  6. Leisman D, Huang V, Zhou Q, et al. Delayed second dose antibiotics for patients admitted from the emergency department with sepsis: prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes. Crit Care Med 2017;45:956-65. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28328652
  7. https://www.ecri.org/components/HRC/Documents/Sepsis%20at%20a%20Glance.pdf

 

If you enjoyed this pearl, sign up to get “Fresh Pearls from Oceans of Knowledge!” with each new post!

In my patient with sepsis, is administration of proper antibiotics within an hour compared to 1-3 hours associated with better outcome?

Is there any utility to laboratory testing for inherited thrombophilia or antiphospholipid syndrome in my hospitalized patient with unprovoked acute pulmonary embolism?

There is virtually no utility to obtaining heritable thrombophilia testing in acute hospital setting. In fact, there are potential harms due to false-positive and false-negative results which in turn may lead to increasing anxiety in the patient and added cost due to repeat testing.

As many tests obtained as part of this workup are functional assays—eg, the protein S, C, or antithrombin activity, and activated protein C resistance (often used to screen for factor V Leiden)— they are easily impacted by the physiologic effects of acute thrombosis as well as all anticoagulants.1

More importantly, testing for inherited thrombophilia will not impact management in the acute setting, as decisions regarding duration of anticoagulation are often made later in the outpatient setting. The proper time to evaluate the patient for inherited thrombophilias (if indicated) is at least one week following discontinuation of anticoagulation (minimum 3 months from the time of the index event). 2 

Testing for antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) may be considered in this setting though it should be noted that the lupus anticoagulant assay is impacted by nearly every anticoagulant, resulting in frequent false-positive results1, and therefore should be performed before initiation of these agents (or delayed until later if anticoagulation has already begun). A false-positive result has downstream implications as many patients with acute, uncomplicated venous thromboembolism (VTE) are discharged on a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC), and antiphospholipid syndrome is currently considered a relative contraindication to the use of DOACs in VTE.

References
1. Moll, S. “Thrombophilia: Clinical-practical aspects.” J Thromb Thrombolysis 2015;39:367-78. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25724822
2. Connors JM. “Thrombophilia Testing and Venous Thrombosis.” N Engl J Med 2017; 377:1177-1187. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1700365 

Contributed by Hanny Al-Samkari, MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA

If you liked this pearl, sign up under menu to receive future pearls “Fresh from Oceans of Knowledge”!

Is there any utility to laboratory testing for inherited thrombophilia or antiphospholipid syndrome in my hospitalized patient with unprovoked acute pulmonary embolism?

Should prothrombin complex concentrates be used to reverse anticoagulation from direct factor Xa inhibitors?

Due to insufficient and occasionally conflicting evidence, the use of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) for reversal of direct factor Xa inhibitors (eg, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) is NOT recommended.1 This is because PCCs have no effect on the anti-Xa assay, the most accurate measure of anticoagulation for direct factor Xa inhibitors.

Although several in vitro and in vivo studies initially suggested that PCCs may be effective for this purpose, anti-Xa activity has not been measured in these studies2-4; PT and aPTT are not reflective of the anticoagulation activity of direct factor Xa inhibitors.

In fact, a 2014 study found no difference in the anti-Xa activity between 11 patients on rivaroxaban who were given a 4-factor PCC (Beriplex®, the European brand name for Kcentra®) and 12 patients on rivaroxaban receiving saline.5 Though small, this is the best published in vivo data to date examining the effect of 4-factor PCC on the anti-Xa levels of patients on direct factor Xa inhibitors.

A theoretical concern with the use of PCCs is increased risk of thrombosis when the therapeutic effect of these direct oral anticoagulant (DOACs) is gone (half-life ~12 h) while the thrombogenic effects of PCCs persist (eg, in critically ill, postoperative, or sedentary patients).

The good news is that more specific reversal agents are in the pipeline. 1 Stay tuned! 

 

References:

  1. Dzik WH. “Reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors by prothrombin complex concentrates: a re-appraisal.” J Thromb Haemost 2015;13 (Suppl 1):S187-94. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26149022
  2. Perzborn E, Heutmeier S, Laux V, et al. “Reversal of rivaroxaban-induced anticoagulation with prothrombin complex concentrate, activated prothrombin complex concentrate and recombinant activated factor VII in vitro.” Thromb Res 2014 Apr;133:671-81. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24529498
  3. Eerenberg ES, Kamphuisen PW, Sijpkens MK, et al. “Reversal of rivaroxaban and dabigatran by prothrombin complex concentrate: a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy subjects.” Circulation 2011 Oct 4;124:1573-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21900088
  4. Zahir H, Brown KS, Vandell AG, et al. “Edoxaban effects on bleeding following punch biopsy and reversal by a 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate.” Circulation 2015 Jan 6;131:82-90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25403645
  5. Levi M, Moore KT, Castillejos CF, et al. “Comparison of three-factor and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates regarding reversal of the anticoagulant effects of rivaroxaban in healthy volunteers.” J Thromb Haemost 2014;12:1428-36. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24811969

Contributed by Hanny Al-Samkari MD, Mass General Hospital, Boston, MA.

 

If you liked this pearl, sign up to get future pearls  “Fresh from oceans of knowledge!”

 

Should prothrombin complex concentrates be used to reverse anticoagulation from direct factor Xa inhibitors?

Is iron therapy contraindicated in my patient with active infection?

In the absence of randomized-controlled trials of iron therapy in patients with active infection, the harmful effects of iron therapy (IT) in this setting remains more theoretical than proven. 1,2

Although many pathogens (eg, E. coli, Klebsiella, Salmonella, Yersinia, and Staphylococcus species) depend on iron for their growth2,3, and iron overload states (eg, hemochromatosis) predispose to a variety of infections, studies evaluating the risk of infection with iron therapy have reported conflicting results.1-4 A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis of 103 trials comparing IV iron therapy  with several other approaches, including oral iron therapy or placebo, found no increased risk of infections with IV iron.5 In contrast, an earlier systematic review and meta-analysis involving fewer number of trials found an increased risk of infections with IV iron. 6

These varied results are perhaps not surprising since the effects of iron therapy on the risk of infection is likely to be context-specific, depending on the patient’s preexisting iron status, exposure to potential infections and co-infection and genetic background. 4 Of interest, mice with sepsis have worse outcomes when treated with IV iron.7

Perhaps the most prudent approach is to hold off on iron therapy until the active infection is controlled, unless the benefits of urgent iron therapy is thought to outweigh its theoretical harmful effects.

 

References

  1. Daoud E, Nakhla E, Sharma R. Is iron therapy for anemia harmful in the setting of infection? Clev Clin J Med 2011;78:168-70. http://www.mdedge.com/ccjm/article/95480/hematology/iron-therapy-anemia-harmful-setting-infection
  2. Hain D, Braun M. IV iron: to give or to hold in the presence of infection in adults undergoing hemodialysis. Nephrology Nursing Journal 2015;42:279-83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26207288
  3. Jonker FAM, van Hensbroek MB. Anaemia, iron deficiency and susceptibility of infections. J Infect 204;69:523-27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28397964
  4. Drakesmith H, Prentice AM. Hepcidin and the iron-infection axis. Science 2012;338:768-72. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23139325  
  5. Avni T, Bieber A, Grossman A, et al. The safety of intravenous iron preparations: systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clin Proc 2015;90:12-23. http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(14)00883-0/pdf
  6. Litton E, Xiao J, Ho KM. Safety and efficacy of intravenous iron therapy in reducing requirement for allogeneic blood transfusion: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. BMJ 2013;347:f4822. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23950195
  7. Javadi P, Buchman TG, Stromberg PE, et al. High dose exogenous iron following cecal ligation and puncture increases mortality rate in mice and is associated with an increase in gut epithelial and splenic apoptosis. Crit Care Med 2004;32:1178-1185. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15190970
Is iron therapy contraindicated in my patient with active infection?