A prospective survey in European Society of Cardiology member countries of atrial fibrillation management: baseline results of EURO bservational Research Programme Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) Pilot General Registry

Aims: Given the advances in atrial fibrillation (AF) management and the availability of new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, there is a need for the systematic collection of contemporary data regarding the management and treatment of AF in ESC member countries. Methods and results: We conducted a registry of consecutive in- and outpatients with AF presenting to cardiologists in nine participating ESC countries. All patients with an ECG-documented diagnosis of AF confirmed in the year prior to enrolment were eligible. We enroled a total of 3119 patients from February 2012 to March 2013, with full data on clinical subtype available for 3049 patients (40.4% female; mean age 68.8 years). Common comorbidities were hypertension, coronary disease, and heart failure. Lone AF was present in only 3.9% (122 patients). Asymptomatic AF was common, particularly among those with permanent AF. Amiodarone was the most common antiarrhythmic agent used (~20%), while beta-blockers and digoxin were the most used rate control drugs. Oral anticoagulants (OACs) were used in 80% overall, most often vitamin K antagonists (71.6%), with novel OACs being used in 8.4%. Other antithrombotics (mostly antiplatelet therapy, especially aspirin) were still used in one-third of the patients, and no antithrombotic treatment in only 4.8%. Oral anticoagulants were used in 56.4% of CHA 2DS2-VASc = 0, with 26.3% having no antithrombotic therapy. A high HAS-BLED score was not used to exclude OAC use, but there was a trend towards more aspirin use in the presence of a high HAS-BLED score. Conclusion: The EURObservational Research Programme Atrial Fibrillation (EORP-AF) Pilot Registry has provided systematic collection of contemporary data regarding the management and treatment of AF by cardiologists in ESC member countries. Oral anticoagulant use has increased, but novel OAC use was still low. Compliance with the treatment guidelines for patients with the lowest and higher stroke risk scores remains suboptimal. © The Author 2013

Economic advantage of 'self-made' antibiotic-loaded spacer compared to prefabricated antibiotic-loaded spacer and spacer molds in two-staged revision arthroplasty.

Infection after total hip or total knee arthroplasty is a serious complication implying great costs for the health care system. Amongst the different treatment options, the two-step exchange using a spacer in the interval is a valid option. We evaluate the economic impact of our self-made antibiotic-loaded hip and knee cement spacers compared with prefabricated spacers and spacer molds. Costs to prepare self-made cement spacers are detailed for each spacer type. We also assess the intraoperative time spent for fabricating our self-made hip and knee spacers. The price of these self-made knee spacer is 514 CHF (450 EUR / 505 USD) if non-articulated and 535 CHF (470 EUR / 525 USD) if articulated ; the price for the self-made hip spacer is 749 CHF (760 EUR / 735 USD). Our average preparation time is 14 minutes for our self-made knee spacers and 16 minutes for our self-made hip spacers. While the senior surgeon is fabricating the self-spacers, another surgeon of the team continues intensive irrigation and debridement. Thus, no time is lost waiting for the self-spacer to be fabricated. In our hands, self-made hip and knee spacers are at least 40-50% cheaper than prefabricated spacers and spacer-molds. This is a serious economic advantage in this already expensive surgery. When done in teamwork, self-spacer fabrication does not increase the surgery time. The economic advantage is added to the main and most important advantage of self- made spacers, which remains the possibility of patient adapted anatomical reconstruction of the joint

What is the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR compared to PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer?

To compare the diagnostic performance of 18-FDG-PET/MR and PET/CT for the N- and M- staging of breast cancer. Two independent readers blinded to clinical/follow-up data reviewed PET/MR and PET/CT examinations performed for initial or recurrent breast cancer staging in 80 consecutive patients (mean age = 48 ± 12.9 years). The diagnostic confidence for lesions in the contralateral breast, axillary/internal mammary nodes, bones and other distant sites were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated. The standard of reference included pathology and/or follow-up > 12 months. Nine of 80 patients had bone metastases; 13/80 had other distant metastases, 44/80 had axillary, 9/80 had internal mammary and 3/80 had contralateral breast tumours. Inter-reader agreement for lesions was excellent (weighted kappa = 0.833 for PET/CT and 0.823 for PET/MR) with similar reader confidence for the two tests (ICC = 0.875). In the patient-per-patient analysis, sensitivity and specificity of PET/MRI and PET/CT were similar (p > 0.05). In the lesion-per-lesion analysis, the sensitivity of PET/MR and PET/CT for bone metastases, other metastases, axillary and internal mammary nodes, contralateral tumours and all lesions together was 0.924 and 0.6923 (p = 0.0034), 0.923 and 0.923 (p = 1), 0.854 and 0.812 (p = 0.157), 0.9 and 0.9 (p = 1), 1 and 0.25 (p = 0.083), and 0.89 and 0.77 (p = 0.0013) respectively. The corresponding specificity was 0.953 and 1 (p = 0.0081), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.893 and 0.92 (p = 0.257), 1 and 1 (p = 1), 0.987 and 0.99 (p = 1) and 0.96 and 0.98 (p = 0.0075) respectively. Reader confidence, inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance per patient were similar with PET/MR and PET/CT. However, for all lesions together, PET/MR had a superior sensitivity and lower specificity in the lesion-per-lesion analysis. • N and M breast cancer staging performance of PET/MR and PET/CT is similar per patient. • In a lesion-per-lesion analysis PET/MR is more sensitive than PET/CT especially for bone metastasis. • Readers' diagnostic confidence is similar for both tests