1,721,025 research outputs found
Detection and management of atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke or embolic stroke of undetermined source
No full textCryptogenic stroke (CS) and embolic stroke of unknown source (ESUS) represent a major challenge to healthcare systems worldwide. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is commonly found after CS or ESUS. Independent of the mechanism of the index CS or ESUS, detection of AF in these patients offers the opportunity to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence by prescribing an anticoagulant instead of aspirin. The detection of AF may be pursued with different monitoring strategies. Comparison of monitoring strategies should take into account that AF detection rates reported in published studies, and then pooled in meta-analyses, are not only a function of the monitoring strategy itself, but also depend on patient-related, device-related, and study design–related factors. Once AF is found, the decision to anticoagulate a patient should be made on the basis of AF burden and the baseline risk of the patient. Empirical anticoagulation in patients with ESUS and no evidence of AF is an intriguing but still-unproven strategy and therefore should not be adopted outside of randomized clinical trials
Cryptogenic stroke and underlying atrial fibrillation
No full textBACKGROUND:
Current guidelines recommend at least 24 hours of electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring after an ischemic stroke to rule out atrial fibrillation. However, the most effective duration and type of monitoring have not been established, and the cause of ischemic stroke remains uncertain despite a complete diagnostic evaluation in 20 to 40% of cases (cryptogenic stroke). Detection of atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke has therapeutic implications.
METHODS:
We conducted a randomized, controlled study of 441 patients to assess whether long-term monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) is more effective than conventional follow-up (control) for detecting atrial fibrillation in patients with cryptogenic stroke. Patients 40 years of age or older with no evidence of atrial fibrillation during at least 24 hours of ECG monitoring underwent randomization within 90 days after the index event. The primary end point was the time to first detection of atrial fibrillation (lasting >30 seconds) within 6 months. Among the secondary end points was the time to first detection of atrial fibrillation within 12 months. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
RESULTS:
By 6 months, atrial fibrillation had been detected in 8.9% of patients in the ICM group (19 patients) versus 1.4% of patients in the control group (3 patients) (hazard ratio, 6.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9 to 21.7; P<0.001). By 12 months, atrial fibrillation had been detected in 12.4% of patients in the ICM group (29 patients) versus 2.0% of patients in the control group (4 patients) (hazard ratio, 7.3; 95% CI, 2.6 to 20.8; P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS:
ECG monitoring with an ICM was superior to conventional follow-up for detecting atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke. (Funded by Medtronic; CRYSTAL AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00924638.)
Aetiologic diagnosis of coronary artery aneurysm in a patient with pancreatitis, dacryoadenitis, and sialadenitis
Full text linkNo abstract available
Myocardial stunning after successful defibrillation
No full textA 75-year-old man presented to the emergency department with syncope. His ECG rhythm showed a broad complex tachycardia. After synchronized cardioversion with a monophasic 100 J shock he developed coarse ventricular fibrillation. The initial rhythm after the shock was sinus rhythm with no
pulse or signs of life. The initial QRS was enlarged, while the following eight QRS complexes showed progressively decreasing ST-segment elevation. There was no palpable carotid pulse associated with this ECG activity. This case shows a combination of electrical and mechanical stunning after defibrillation
Are patients brain-dead after successful resuscitation from cardiac arrest suitable as organ donors? A systematic review
No full textAIM: To compare the outcome of organs retrieved from patients brain dead due to cardiac arrest (CA) with that of organs retrieved from patients brain dead due to other causes (non-CA).
METHODS: Systematic review. Clinical studies comparing the outcome of patients and organs retrieved from donors brain dead after being resuscitated from cardiac arrest with that of patients and organs retrieved from donors brain dead not due to cardiac arrest were considered for inclusion. Full-text articles were searched on MEDLINE, EmBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Register of Systematic Reviews.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: One-year patient or organ survival rate.
RESULTS: Four studies fulfilling inclusion criteria were found and three had sufficient quality to be included in final analysis. A total of 858 organs were transplanted from 741 donors. Since the transplanted organs (heart, liver, kidney, lung and intestine) were different in the three studies, metanalysis was not performed. There were no significant differences in 1-year survival rates between CA and non-CA groups. No significant differences were reported for 5-year survival rates, early recovery of transplanted organ function, and organ rejection rates.
CONCLUSION: Survival rates of kidneys, livers, hearts and intestines retrieved from CA donors were not significantly different from that of organs transplanted from non-CA donors. Patients brain dead after having been resuscitated from cardiac arrest can be considered as potential donors for organ transplantation
Racial differences in coronary vasomotor response or selection bias?
No full text© 2001 American Heart Association, Inc.Pristipino, Christian; Finocchiaro, Maria L.; Mongiardo, Rocco; Cianflone, Domenico; Sanna, Tommaso; Maseri, Attilio; Beltrame, John F.; Hattori, Ryuichi; Fujita, Masatoshi; Sasayama, Shigetak
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
