Hypertension and atrial fibrillation: diagnostic approach, prevention and treatment. Position paper of the Working Group 'Hypertension Arrhythmias and Thrombosis' of the European Society of Hypertension.

Hypertension is the most common cardiovascular disorder and atrial fibrillation is the most common clinically significant arrhythmia. Both these conditions frequently coexist and their prevalence increases rapidly with aging. There are different risk factors and clinical conditions predisposing to the development of atrial fibrillation, but due its high prevalence, hypertension is still the main risk factor for the development of atrial fibrillation. Several pathophysiologic mechanisms (such as structural changes, neurohormonal activation, fibrosis, atherosclerosis, etc.) have been advocated to explain the onset of atrial fibrillation. The presence of atrial fibrillation per se increases the risk of stroke but its coexistence with high blood pressure leads to an abrupt increase of cardiovascular complications. Different risk models are available for the risk stratification and the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. In all of them hypertension is present and is an important risk factor. Antihypertensive treatment may contribute to reduce this risk, and it seems some classes are superior to others in the prevention of new-onset atrial fibrillation and prevention of stroke. Antithrombotic treatment with warfarin is effective in the prevention of thromboembolic events, although quite recently, new classes of anticoagulants that do not require international normalized ratio monitoring have been introduced with promising results

Pulsed radiofrequency treatment in interventional pain management: mechanisms and potential indications—a review

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: The objective of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of Pulsed Radiofrequency (PRF) treatment in chronic pain management in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and well-designed observational studies. The physics, mechanisms of action, and biological effects are discussed to provide the scientific basis for this promising modality. METHODS: We systematically searched for clinical studies on PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE database, using the free text terms: pulsed radiofrequency, radio frequency, radiation, isothermal radiofrequency, and combination of these. We classified the information in two tables, one focusing only on RCTs, and another, containing prospective studies. Date of last electronic search was 30 May 2010. The methodological quality of the presented reports was scored using the original criteria proposed by Jadad et al. FINDINGS: We found six RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF, one against corticosteroid injection, one against sham intervention, and the rest against conventional RF thermocoagulation. Two trials were conducted in patients with lower back pain due to lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain, one in cervical radicular pain, one in lumbosacral radicular pain, one in trigeminal neuralgia, and another in chronic shoulder pain. CONCLUSION: From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regards to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the methodological quality of the included study. PRF application to the supracapular nerve was found to be as efficacious as intra-articular corticosteroid in patients with chronic shoulder pain. The use of PRF in lumbar facet arthropathy and trigeminal neuralgia was found to be less effective than conventional RF thermocoagulation techniques

2007 Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

n/

Infection rates associated with epidural indwelling catheters for seven days or longer: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: To determine infection rate with use of epidural catheters in place for seven days or more. METHODS: Systematic review and pooled analysis of observational studies. RESULTS: Twelve studies with 4,628 patients (median 197 patients) provided information, of which nine (4,334 patients) were published after 1990. Eight studies (3,893 patients) were retrospective, and four studies (735 patients) prospective. Electronic searches identified three studies and searching reference lists nine. There were 257 catheter-related infections in total, of which 211 were superficial and 57 deep, giving rates of 6.1%, 4.6% and 1.2% respectively. Ten of the 12 studies had deep infection rates of 2% or less. The incidence of deep infection was 1 per 2391 days of treatment, or 0.4 per 1000 catheter treatment days. In nine studies (1503 patients), predominantly in cancer, and with average catheter duration of 74 days, the deep infection rate was 2.8%. The proportion of patients with infection of any type was higher in cancer patients with longer catheter duration. Limited numbers of events meant that no reliable estimate of the impact of prospective and retrospective design could be made. There appeared to be a relationship between catheter duration and infection rate from this and other recent estimates. Four of 57 (7%) patients with deep infection died. CONCLUSION: The best estimate is that one person in 35 with an epidural catheter in place for 74 days for relief of cancer pain can be expected to have a deep epidural infection, and that about 1 in 500 may die of infection-related causes. This is a most uncertain estimate given the limited nature of the evidence

Perceptions of hypertension treatment among patients with and without diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the availability of a wide selection of effective antihypertensive treatments and the existence of clear treatment guidelines, many patients with hypertension do not have controlled blood pressure. We conducted a qualitative study to explore beliefs and perceptions regarding hypertension and gain an understanding of barriers to treatment among patients with and without diabetes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ten focus groups were held for patients with hypertension in three age ranges, with and without diabetes. The topic guides for the groups were: What will determine your future health status? What do you understand by "raised blood pressure"? How should one go about treating raised blood pressure?</p> <p>Results</p> <p>People with hypertension tend to see hypertension not as a disease but as a risk factor for myocardial infarction or stroke. They do not view it as a continuous, degenerative process of damage to the vascular system, but rather as a binary risk process, within which you can either be a winner (not become ill) or a loser. This makes non-adherence to treatment a gamble with a potential positive outcome. Patients with diabetes are more likely to accept hypertension as a chronic illness with minor impact on their routine, and less important than their diabetes. Most participants overestimated the effect of stress as a causative factor believing that a reduction in levels of stress is the most important treatment modality. Many believe they "know their bodies" and are able to control their blood pressure. Patients without diabetes were most likely to adopt a treatment which is a compromise between their physician's suggestions and their own understanding of hypertension.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patient denial and non-adherence to hypertension treatment is a prevalent phenomenon reflecting a conscious choice made by the patient, based on his knowledge and perceptions regarding the medical condition and its treatment. There is a need to change perception of hypertension from a gamble to a disease process. Changing the message from the existing one of "silent killer" to one that depicts hypertension as a manageable disease process may have the potential to significantly increase adherence rates.</p