Malignant Arrhythmia in Apical Ballooning Syndrome: Risk Factors and Outcomes

Objectives: We sought to determine the frequency and outcomes with symptomatic arrhythmia in patients with apical ballooning syndrome (ABS). Methods: A retrospective review of the Mayo Clinic Angiography database was conducted to identify patients who met the Mayo criteria for ABS. Patients with documented arrhythmias formed the study group, and 31 randomly selected patients with ABS but without arrhythmia formed the control group. Results: Out of 105 patients identified with ABS, 6 (5.7%) women aged 69 +/- 9 years experienced significant arrhythmia (ventricular fibrillation, asystole), 2 patients died, and 1 required permanent pacemaker implantation. When compared with controls, the study group showed no significant difference with respect to ECG characteristics (QT, QRS duration or axis) except for R-R interval variability (see comments below) (30.6±6 vs 14.5±17 p = 0.0004), QTc, and P-R interval. Patients without arrhythmia were more likely to be on beta-blocker therapy than the study population (33% vs 80.6% p = 0.02). Conclusion: Life-threatening arrhythmia is uncommon (5.7%) with ABS despite marked, structural abnormalities. When arrhythmias do occur, the outcome is poor. Prominent variability in R-R intervals appears to be predictive of significant arrhythmias in ABS. The role of beta-blocker therapy in preventing arrhythmia with ABS requires further investigation

A Comparison of Components of Written Expression Abilities in Learning Disabled and Non-Learning Disabled Students at Three Grade Levels

Although written language plays a critical role in academic success, little empirical evidence exists on the normal development of processes involved in producing written products. Even less is known about the writing performance of LD children. This study empirically compared the written products of LD and normal students at three grade levels on The Test of Written Language. Results showed that LD subjects scored significantly lower than normal subjects on most written expression abilities, especially in the mechanical tasks of spelling, punctuation, and word usage.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

BACKGROUND: In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [P=0.65]), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.53 [P=0.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks

Device Therapies Among Patients Receiving Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverterâ Defibrillators in the Cardiovascular Research Network

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143721/1/jah33061_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143721/2/jah33061.pd

A New Definition of Learning Disabilities

Learning disabilities is a generic term that refers to a heterogeneous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrinsic to the individual and presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sensory impairment, mental retardation, social and emotional disturbance) or environmental influences (e.g., cultural differences, insufficient/inappropriate instruction, psychogenic factors), it is not the direct result of those conditions or influences.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

ACC/AHA/HRS 2008 guidelines for device-based therapy of cardiac rhythm abnormalities: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the ACC/AHA/NASPE 2002 guideline update for implantation of cardiac pacemakers and antiarrhythmia devices)

This revision of the “ACC/AHA/NASPE Guidelines for Implantation of Cardiac Pacemakers and Antiarrhythmia Devices” updates the previous versions published in 1984, 1991, 1998, and 2002. Revision of the statement was deemed necessary for multiple reasons: 1) Major studies have been reported that have advanced our knowledge of the natural history of bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias, which may be treated optimally with device therapy; 2) there have been tremendous changes in the management of heart failure that involve both drug and device therapy; and 3) major advances in the technology of devices to treat, delay, and even prevent morbidity and mortality from bradyarrhythmias, tachyarrhythmias, and heart failure have occurred