Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HfrEF). Etiology may influence the outcome of patients undergoing CRT. Objective: to evaluate whether etiology (ischemic vs non-ischemic) influences the response to CRT and overall outcome. Methods: Our study included HFrEF patients undergoing CRT between January 2017-November 2019. We assessed right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV) function using transthoracic echocardiography at baseline and one year after CRT. The response to CRT was defined by a decrease of more than 15% of left ventricle systolic volume. Patients were divided in two groups: ischemic and non-ischemic based on personal history. Adverse events (HF related hospitalizations and deaths) were tracked for 33± 12.8 months. Results: 52 patients undergoing CRT were included (64±13.5 years, 55.7% male, 70% non-ischemic etiology) The two groups were similar considering LV systolic baseline parameters and volumes. Ischemic etiology was associated with non-LBBB morphology on ECG (p=0.03), a more severe LV diastolic dysfunction using E/e ratio (p<0.05), and a more severe RV dysfunction using TAPSE (p=0.008) and RV fractional area change (FAC) (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in CRT response between ischemic and non-ischemic etiology. 14 (26.9%) patients had events (10 hospitalizations and 4 deaths) with a higher prevalence in the ischemic group (58.33% vs 25%, p=0.01). Univariate Cox regression analysis reported a higher risk of cardiovascular events for ischemic etiology (HR 2.4, 95% CI [0.8-8.1], p <0.05). In our cohort there was no significant difference in use of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in addition to CRT between ischemic and non-ischemic group (64.2% respectively 63.3%, p =0.3). Conclusion: Our study shows that ischemic and non-ischemic HF patients had similar response to CRT. However, ischemic etiology was associated with a higher risk of adverse cardiovascular events and a worse RV systolic dysfunction at baseline.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is a minimally invasive method of treatment used for large kidney stones (>20 mm). It remains the standard procedure for large renal calculi according to EAU (European Association of Urology) guidelines. The stones are extracted from the kidney by a small puncture wound (about 1 cm) through the skin. Since its introduction this technique has replaced almost completely open surgery for renal lithiasis, who nowadays is used only rarely in selected cases. Although this procedure has much lower complications than open surgery, the complications following this procedure can be serious[1] (Table 1). Morbidity and complications following PCNL are dominated by fever (10.5%) and bleeding (7.8%)[2]. [...]