(1) Background: Culture-negative endocarditis is challenging to diagnose. Here, we retrospectively identified 23 cases of Coxiella burnetii and Bartonella endocarditis by metagenomic next-generation sequencing. (2) Methods: Twenty-three patients with culture-negative endocarditis were retrospectively enrolled from Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital (n = 23) between April 2019 and December 2021. Metagenomic next-generation sequencing was performed on blood (n = 22) and excised cardiac valvular tissue samples (n = 22) for etiological identification, and Sanger sequencing was performed for pathogenic diagnostic verification. The demographic and clinical data of the 23 patients were obtained from hospital electronic health records. (3) Results: A total of 23 male patients (median age, 56 years (interquartile range, 16)) with culture-negative endocarditis were diagnosed with Coxiella burnetii (n = 21) or Bartonella (n = 2) species infection by metagenomic next-generation sequencing. All patients underwent cardiac surgery. The resected tissue exhibited both a significantly higher number of unique suspected pathogen read-pairs and more unique pathogen read-pairs than the blood specimens. The results of Sanger sequencing tests on all remaining tissue and blood specimens were positive. Oral doxycycline was added to the antibiotic regimen for at least 1.5 years according to etiology. A total of 21 patients (91%) were discharged, and 20 patients were healthy at the 21-month (interquartile range, 15) follow-up visit. One patient exhibited endocarditis relapse with the same pathogen from inadequate antibiotic administration. The last 2 patients (9%) developed septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome postoperatively and died shortly after discharge. (4) Conclusions: CNE caused by C. burnetii and Bartonella species is challenging to diagnose and exhibits poor outcome due to delayed treatment. In response, mNGS, characterized by high sensitivity and rapid results, is an effective alternative for the etiological identification of C. burnetii and Bartonella endocarditis.

Original Article Chinese contribution to NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ from 2011 to 2020: a 10-year bibliometric study Jinlin Wu, Huili Li, Yan Huang, Guang Tong, Miao Tian, Yanfen Wu, Changjiang Yu, Jue Yang, Ruixin Fan, Tucheng Sun, Xin Li, Jian Zhuang

Objectives: Isolated abdominal aortic dissection (IAAD) is extremely rare, with its optimal treatment and intervention timing remaining poorly understood. We aimed to study the natural history of IAAD and facilitate better clinical decision.Methods: Consecutive patients admitted to our institution from January 2016 to April 2021 were enrolled and followed up prospectively. All-cause death was taken as the primary endpoint.Results: A total of 68 patients with IAAD were included. The mean age at presentation was 61.2 ± 14.8 (Range: 26.0, 93.0) years and 55 (80.9%) were male. A total of 38 (55.9%) patients were treated conservatively, 27 (39.7%) received endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), and 3 (4.4%) underwent open surgery. After a mean follow-up of 2.4 years (Range: 0.1, 5.5), 9 (13.2%) patients died, 8 of whom (21.0%) were treated conservatively and 1 EVAR (3.7%). Compared with EVAR/open surgery, patient treated conservatively had a much worse survival (p = 0.043). There was no significant difference between different IAAD aortic sizes regarding mortality (p = 0.220). Patients with completely thrombosed false lumen fared improved survival rate, followed by partial thrombosis and patency, respectively, although not significantly (p = 0.190). No significant difference was observed between male and female concerning survival rate (p = 0.970). Patients without symptoms had a significantly improved survival (p = 0.048).Conclusion: On the basis of patients’ preference and surgeons’ experience, a more aggressive treatment regimen for IAAD should be considered, with EVAR being the first choice, especially for those with persistent symptoms and patent false lumen, regardless of sex, age, or aortic size.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antihypertensive medication for chronic type B aortic dissection (AD) remains undecided. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan to determine suitable antihypertensive drug combinations. METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B AD and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in (i) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); (ii) pulse pressure (PP); and (iii) mean ambulatory blood pressure (BP) for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at week 8 (between-treatment difference: −5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval −5.8 to −4.5], P < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and PP as well as the mean ambulatory BP for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P < 0.001). No excessive episodes of AEs occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved BP control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic type B AD.