Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Depression and anxiety are known to potentiate cardiovascular disease and result in worse outcomes. These disorders disproportionately affect women. The purpose of this review is to examine the impact of depression and anxiety on cardiovascular outcomes in women. Depression, anxiety, and psychosocial stressors work through a number of mechanisms to decrease health behavior engagement and increase cardiovascular risk in women. Ultimately, this leads to worsened quality of life, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality among affected women. Notably, because these conditions are more prevalent in women, they may contribute to widening of pre-existing disparities in cardiovascular outcomes based on sex. Depression and anxiety may contribute to impaired quality of life and increased mortality in women with cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, it is imperative for providers to screen for, recognize, and treat these conditions.

As the number of cancer survivors continues to rise with improved early-detection methods and advancing therapies, along with it, there come adverse health outcomes as a result of physiological and psychological effects of cancer, as well as adverse effects of cancer treatment itself. This paper reviews the risk of cardiovascular disease in cancer survivors. Cancer survivors are at higher risk of having modifiable cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, tobacco smoking, and physical inactivity. Cardiotoxicity is a well-established adverse effect of various anticancer regimens, which further elevates the cardiovascular risk in cancer patients. The increased risk of CVD and CVD-related death in cancer survivors is likely to be multifactorial, involving cardiotoxic effects of cancer treatments as well as comorbidities and harmful lifestyle habits. Targeting and managing known cardiac risk factors should be a main target in CVD prevention in cancer survivors.

The optimal therapy for the treatment of sepsis and septic shock remains controversial. Many protocols are followed, using different strategies for initial resuscitation, cardiovascular monitoring, hemodynamic intervention, and eradication of infection. Overall, an aggressive approach to the management of cardiovascular dysfunction in septic shock is warranted. Initially, large volume fluid resuscitation is instituted. Our first choice of resuscitation fluid is 0.9% normal saline. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring using a flotation pulmonary artery catheter as well as invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring is a necessity in the hemodynamic management of septic shock. If the patient remains hypotensive (mean arterial pressure < 65 mm Hg) after adequate volume resuscitation has been established (pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 12 to 15 mm Hg), then vasopressor agents must be instituted. Our first choice is usually dopamine. In patients who remain hypotensive after maximal doses of dopamine are reached, norepinephrine is added. If these agents generate excessive tachycardia or if tachyarrhythmias develop, phenylephrine can be substituted or added. Inotropic agents are useful if the patient demonstrates hypotension with a low cardiac output state. Dobutamine is the agent of choice. We initiate broad-spectrum empiric antibiotics at presentation, modifying the exact regimen based on 1) site of infection; 2) prevailing organisms and antibiotic resistance patterns in the patient’s environment; and 3) other specific risk factors (immunosuppression, chronic disease, exposure and vaccination history, invasive medical devices). When appropriate, aggressive surgical debridement is pursued. Currently, there are no clinical data to support the use of antagonists for sepsis mediators, although various clinical trials remain underway. Steroids are contraindicated except for adrenal replacement therapy.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide with an estimated 17.5 million deaths annually, or 31% of all global deaths, according to the World Health Organization. The majority of these deaths are preventable by addressing lifestyle modification (i.e., smoking cessation, diet, obesity, and physical inactivity) and promoting medication adherence. At present, initiatives to develop cost-effective modalities to support self-management, lifestyle modification, and medication adherence are a leading priority. Digital health has rapidly emerged as technology with the potential to address this gap in cardiovascular disease self-management and transform the way healthcare has been traditionally delivered. However, limited evidence exists about the type of technologies available and how they differ in functionality, effectiveness, and application. We aimed to review the most important and relevant recent studies addressing health technologies to promote lifestyle change and medication adherence including text messaging, applications (“apps”), and wearable devices. The current literature indicates that digital health technologies will likely play a prominent role in future cardiovascular disease management, risk reduction, and delivery of care in both resource-rich and resource-limited settings. However, there is limited large-scale evidence to support adoption of existing interventions. Further clinical research and healthcare policy change are needed to move the promise of new digital health technologies towards reality.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are a remarkable success story. These systems are widely used to prevent symptomatic bradycardia, treat malignant tachyarrhythmia, and to restore a more physiologic contraction to a failing left ventricle. Implantation of a CIED usually involves a lifelong commitment to this therapy, which, unfortunately, is not free from complication requiring removal and/or replacement of all or part of the system. The major obstacle to removal of a CIED is the fibrous attachments that develop between a lead and co-existent leads, veins, and the heart. This process increases over time such that, by one year, removal by traction alone may be problematic and, if aggressive, result in complication. Physicians, surgeons, and engineers have refined techniques of percutaneous lead extraction and developed tools, which have facilitated the process, increased success, and lowered the incidence of complication. Extraction may be performed for a variety of indications some of which are unanimously agreed upon while others remain controversial. Proponents of a broadened application of extraction have proffered the concept of ‘lead management,’ which includes the removal of all leads that are not clinically relevant to the patient. The benefit of this approach would be to limit the risk of future complication, such as venous occlusion or thromboembolism, and to obviate the increase in difficulty of extraction (due to longer implant duration) that might accompany removal should that be required in the future. Intuitively appealing as this approach might be, there is little evidence supporting it, and the extraordinarily large number of patients currently implanted with recalled ICD leads is indicative of the potential impact this practice may have. This review will discuss extraction, its indications, and outcomes.

Despite significant advances in the treatment of ischemic heart disease (IHD), it remains the leading cause of mortality worldwide. Undoubtedly, methods for regenerating the injured human heart are urgently needed, and whilst exciting progress has been made from utilizing stem cell therapy for cardiac regeneration, several major challenges still remain. In particular, one major safety issue is the occurrence of potentially life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias after cell therapy. Several drivers may be responsible for this, ranging from the potential inherent arrhythmogenicity of delivered stem cells to that of the underlying IHD. Therefore, it is imperative to thoroughly assess the risk-to-benefit ratio of such treatments prior to the clinical application. As such, despite the considerable progress made in stem cell therapy over the past decades, many obstacles still lie ahead.

As the incidence of heart failure continues to rise, modern generation left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have become the primary therapeutic modality used as both bridge to transplant (BTT) and destination therapy (DT) in patients with acute and chronic heart failure. This review aims to highlight the progression of LVAD technology, outline LVAD complications and manifestations, and provide evidence-based therapeutic methods to troubleshoot such adverse events. Despite modern innovation, LVAD adverse events continue to hinder the progress of HF paradigms and are associated with a rise in morbidity and mortality. Complications such as bleeding, pump thrombosis, right heart failure, infections, stroke, valvular insufficiency, and arrhythmias are among the most described. While the management of LVAD complications is described, standardized guidelines are needed to properly identify and troubleshoot all the complications faced by this patient population to decrease morbidity and mortality further.