1,721,418 research outputs found
Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes of the European Society of Cardiology
No full textNot availabl
Cardioverter-defibrillators after MADIT-II: The balance between weight of evidence and treatment costs
No full textThe possibility of using implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for primary prevention of sudden death in selected high-risk patients has prompted a series of prospective controlled studies. Recently, the MADIT II study highlighted the possibility of effective primary prevention of sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease selected by straightforward clinical data and without expensive screening (electrophysiological study). For patients with previous myocardial infarction and low left ventricular ejection fraction (</=30%), ICD implantation may reduce mortality risk by approximately 31% in the following 2 years. Implementation of this therapeutic strategy threatens to impact on public health-care spending. Possible cost-limiting mechanisms include price cuts because of increasing usage (market forces); identification of subgroups at higher risk of sudden death and use of cheaper devices with limited diagnostic and therapeutic options. Further long-term evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ICDs should identify subgroups of patients for whom implantation is affordable despite current economic constraints. For heart failure patients, randomized controlled trials are currently evaluating the effects on overall survival of both conventional ICDs and devices with biventricular pacing capabilities. In this perspective, data from the COMPANION trial are expected to stimulate the use of devices with defibrillation back-up in candidates for biventricular pacing
Nuovi concept per chi non smette mai di imparare. Strategie e potenzialità per l’università del LifeLong Learning
No full text
[Implantable defibrillators and prevention of sudden death: clinical and economic implications in the light of the MADIT II study]. FT Defibrillatori impiantabili e prevenzione della morte improvvisa: implicazioni cliniche ed economiche alla luce dello studio MADIT II.
No full textThe cardioverter-defibrillator is the most effective strategy to prevent sudden death in patients with previous episodes of ventricular tachyarrhythmia (secondary prevention of sudden death). In recent years the possibility of primary prevention of sudden death in selected groups of high risk patients has raised great interest. The MADIT II study highlighted the possibility of preventing sudden death in patients with coronary artery disease. According to this trial, identification of such patients can be performed by means of few clinical data and without expensive screenings (i.e. electrophysiological study). Indeed, patients with a previous myocardial infarction and low left ventricular ejection fraction (< 30%) may benefit from the implant of a cardioverter-defibrillator, with a reduction of the mortality risk by about 31% in the following two years. In the light of these data, implant of a cardioverter-defibrillator should be proposed in such patients, even if the problem of limited economic resources to meet the cost of the devices has to be considered even in the richest country of the world. Despite the positive scientific result, MADIT II has raised the problem of the effective possibility of adopting this therapeutic strategy in clinical practice and this question is still open. Strategies to reduce the theoretically high costs implicated by the MADIT II study include a reduction in the cost of defibrillators through dynamic market forces, the identification of subgroups at higher risk of sudden death, and the use of cheap defibrillators with limited diagnostic and therapeutic options. A long-term evaluation of the cost-effectiveness for western countries of these strategies is necessary to identify in which patient subgroups implant of a cardioverter-defibrillator is acceptable, i.e. cost-effective, in terms of primary prevention
Pharmacological cardioversion of atrial fibrillation: current management and treatment options.
No full textAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common form of arrhythmia, carrying high social costs. It is usually first seen by general practitioners or in emergency departments. Despite the availability of consensus guidelines, considerable variations exist in treatment practice, especially outside specialised cardiological settings. Cardioversion to sinus rhythm aims to: (i) restore the atrial contribution to ventricular filling/output; (ii) regularise ventricular rate; and (iii) interrupt atrial remodelling. Cardioversion always requires careful assessment of potential proarrhythmic and thromboembolic risks, and this translates into the need to personalise treatment decisions. Among the many clinical variables that affect strategy selection, time from onset is crucial. In selected patients, pharmacological cardioversion of recent-onset AF can be a safely used, feasible and effective approach, even in internal medicine and emergency departments. In most cases of recent-onset AF, pharmacological cardioversion provides an important--and probably more cost effective--alternative to electrical cardioversion, which can then be employed as a second-line therapy for nonresponders. Class IC agents (flecainide or propafenone), which can be safely used in hospitalised patients with recent-onset AF without left ventricular dysfunction, can provide rapid conversion to sinus rhythm after either intravenous administration or oral loading. Although intravenous amiodarone requires longer conversion times, it is still the standard treatment for patients with heart failure. Ibutilide also provides good conversion rates and could be used for AF patients with left ventricular dysfunction (were it not for high costs). For long-lasting AF most pharmacological treatments have only limited efficacy and electrical cardioversion remains the gold standard in this setting. However, a widely used strategy involves pretreatment with amiodarone in the weeks before planned electrical cardioversion: this provides optimal prophylaxis and can sometimes even restore sinus rhythm. Dofetilide may also be capable of restoring sinus rhythm in up to 25-30% of patients and can be used in patients with heart failure. The potential risk of proarrhythmia increases the need for careful therapeutic decision making and management of pharmacological cardioversion. The results of recent trials (AFFIRM [Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management] and RACE [Rate Control versus Electrical Cardioversion for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation]) on rate versus rhythm control strategies in the long term have led to a generalised shift in interest towards rate control. Although carefully designed studies are required to better define the role of pharmacological rhythm control in specific AF settings, this alternative option remains a recommendable strategy for many patients, especially those in acute care
Left superior vena cava persistence in patients undergoing pacemaker or cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: a 10-year experience
No full textObjective: The persistence of a left superior vena cava (I,SVC) has been observed in 0.3% of the general population as established by autopsy. In the adult population, it is an important anatomic finding if a left superior approach to the heart is considered. The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of a LSVC in patients undergoing pacemaker (PM) and cardioverter-defibrillator (CD) implantation. Design: We observed the prevalence of LSVC during a 10-year period; each patient undergoing PM or transvenous CD implantation received a left cephalic/left subclavian venous approach to the heart. With this technique, LSVC persistence is easily diagnosed during lead placement. Results: A total of 1,139 patients consecutively underwent PM implantation during 10 years: 4 patients had persistent LSCV (0.34%). Among 115 patients undergoing CD implantation, 2 patients with LSVC (1.7%) were observed, Overall LSVC persistence was found in 6 of 1,254 patients (0.47%), Two patients, one of whom had no light superior vena cava (RSVC), received a left-sided PM, whereas two other patients received right-sided devices. Both CD patients received a left-sided active-can device: the first patient with a right-sided lead tunneled to the left pectoral pocket, as a result of poor catheter handling through the LSVC and coronary sinus, and the second patient with a screw-in lead from]LSVC. Long-term follow-up of these patients (average +/- SD, 41 +/- 26 months) revealed absence of lead dislodgment and appropriate device function regardless of lead implantation site. Conclusions: Persistence of LSVC in adults undergoing PM/CD implantation is similar to that of the general population (0.47% in our study), The left-sided implant can be achieved by stylet shaping and by use of active fixation leads in most patients, with a reliable outcome at short term in addition to appropriate device performance at follow-up. Assessment of the RSVC is advisable when planning a right-sided implantation, since a minority of patients lacks this vessel
High defibrillation threshold at cardioverter defibrillator implantation under amiodarone treatment: Favorable effects of D,L-sotalol
No full textA 57-year-old man with primary dilated cardiomyopathy and obesity received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator because of recurrent, poorly tolerated ventricular tachycardia despite continuous treatment with amiodarone. When the device was implanted, assessment of the ability to defibrillate induced ventricular fibrillation showed high energy requirements, with a lack of conventional safety margin between energies effective at defibrillation testing and maximal device output. Treatment with oral amiodarone was withdrawn and substituted with oral sotalol. A repeat defibrillation test, performed 54 days after amiodarone withdrawal and during D,L-sotalol treatment, showed a reduction in defibrillation energy requirements. In view of this experience, replacement of amiodarone treatment with an alternate class Ill agent (D,L-sotalol or other agents, if available) can be considered as a possible option in case of high defibrillation threshold at the time of the implantation in a patient receiving continuous amiodarone treatment
- …
