268 research outputs found

    Sinus versus nonsinus tachycardia in the emergency department: Importance of age and heart rate

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The emergency department diagnosis of sinus versus nonsinus tachycardia is an important clinical challenge. The objective of this study was to identify subjects with a high prevalence of nonsinus tachycardia. METHODS: Heart rate and cardiac rhythm were prospective reviewed in 500 consecutive patients with heart rate ≥ 100 beats/min in a busy emergency department. A predictive model based on age and heart rate was then developed to identify the probability of nonsinus tachycardia. RESULTS: As age and heart rate increased, nonsinus tachycardias became more frequent. The probability of nonsinus tachycardia in a subject ≥ 71 years with heart rate ≥ 141 beats/minute was 93%, compared to only three percent in a subject ≤ 50 years with heart rate 100–120 beats/minute. A simple point score system based on age and heart rate helps predict the probability of sinus tachycardia versus nonsinus tachycardia. CONCLUSION: Nonsinus tachycardia is significantly more common than sinus tachycardia in elderly patients in the emergency department. The diagnosis of sinus tachycardia becomes much less likely as age and heart rate increase

    Remote magnetic versus manual catheters: evaluation of ablation effect in atrial fibrillation by myocardial marker levels

    Get PDF
    Background A remote magnetic navigation (MN) system is available for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), challenging the conventional manual ablation technique. The myocardial markers were measured to compare the effects of the two types of MN catheters with those of a manual-irrigated catheter in AF ablation. Methods AF patients underwent an ablation procedure using either a conventional manual-irrigated catheter (CIR, n=65) or an MN system utilizing either an irrigated (RMI, n=23) or non-irrigated catheter (RMN, n=26). Levels of troponin T (TnT) and the cardiac isoform of creatin kinase (CKMB) were measured before and after ablation. Results Mean procedure times and total ablation times were longer employing the remote magnetic system. In all groups, there were pronounced increases in markers of myocardial injury after ablation, demonstrating a significant correlation between total ablation time and post-ablation levels of TnT and CKMB (CIR r=0.61 and 0.53, p<0.001; RMI r=0.74 and 0.73, p<0.001; and RMN r=0.51 and 0.59, p<0.01). Time-corrected release of TnT was significantly higher in the CIR group than in the other groups. Of the patients, 59.6% were free from AF at follow-up (12.2± 5.4 months) and there were no differences in success rate between the three groups. Conclusions Remote magnetic catheters may create more discrete and predictable ablation lesions measured by myocardial enzymes and may require longer total ablation time to reach the procedural endpoints. Remote magnetic non-irrigated catheters do not appear to be inferior to magnetic irrigated catheters in terms of myocardial enzyme release and clinical outcome

    Ripple AT Plus - isthmus-guided vs conventional ablation in the treatment of scar-related atrial tachycardia: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background Catheter ablation is routinely used to treat scar-related atrial tachycardia (s-AT). Conventional ablation often involves creating anatomical “lines” that transect myocardial tissue supporting reentry. This can be extensive, creating iatrogenic scar as a nidus for future reentry, and may account for arrhythmia recurrence. High-density mapping may identify “narrower isthmuses” requiring less ablation, with ripple mapping proven to be an effective approach in identifying. This trial explores whether ablation of narrower isthmuses in s-AT, defined using ripple mapping, results in greater freedom from arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional ablation. Methods The Ripple-AT-Plus trial (registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03915691) is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial with 12-month follow-up. Two hundred s-AT patients will be randomised in a 1:1 fashion to either “ripple mapping-guided isthmus ablation” vs conventional ablation on the CARTO3 ConfiDENSE system (Biosense Webster). The primary outcome will compare recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia. Multicentre data will be analysed over a secure web-based cloud-storage and analysis software (CARTONETTM). Conclusion This is the first trial that considers long-term patient outcomes post s-AT ablation, and whether targeting narrower isthmuses in the era of high density is optimal

    Piezo1 channels sense whole body physical activity to reset cardiovascular homeostasis and enhance performance

    Get PDF
    Mammalian biology adapts to physical activity but the molecular mechanisms sensing the activity remain enigmatic. Recent studies have revealed how Piezo1 protein senses mechanical force to enable vascular development. Here, we address Piezo1 in adult endothelium, the major control site in physical activity. Mice without endothelial Piezo1 lack obvious phenotype but close inspection reveals a specific effect on endothelium-dependent relaxation in mesenteric resistance artery. Strikingly, the Piezo1 is required for elevated blood pressure during whole body physical activity but not blood pressure during inactivity. Piezo1 is responsible for flow-sensitive non-inactivating non-selective cationic channels which depolarize the membrane potential. As fluid flow increases, depolarization increases to activate voltage-gated Ca2+ channels in the adjacent vascular smooth muscle cells, causing vasoconstriction. Physical performance is compromised in mice which lack endothelial Piezo1 and there is weight loss after sustained activity. The data suggest that Piezo1 channels sense physical activity to advantageously reset vascular control

    How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis

    Get PDF
    Objectives: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. Design: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. Setting: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. Participants: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. Main outcome measures: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. Results: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. Conclusions: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave
    corecore