Pilot analysis of the usefulness of mortality risk score systems at resuscitated patients

Introduction: Sudden cardiac death is one of the most significant cardiovascular causes of death worldwide. Although there have been immense methodological and technical advances in the field of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and following intensive care in the last decade, currently there are only a few validated risk-stratification scoring systems for the quick and reliable estimation of the mortality risk of these patients at the time of admission to the intensive care unit. Objective: Our aim was to correlate the mortality prediction risk points calculated by CardShock Risk Score (CSRS) and modified (m) CSRS based on the admission data of the post-cardiac arrest syndrome (PCAS) patients. Methods: The medical records of 172 out-of-hospital resuscitated cardiac arrest patients, who were admitted at the Heart and Vascular Centre of Semmelweis University, were screened retrospectively. Out of the 172 selected patients, 123 were eligible for inclusion to calculate CSRS and mCSRS. Based on CSRS score, we generated three different groups of patients, with scores 1 to 3, 4 to 6, and 7+, respectively. Mortality data of the groups were compared by log-rank test. Results: Mean age of the patients was 63.6 years (69% male), the cause of sudden cardiac death was acut coronary syndrome in 80% of the cases. The early and late mortality was predicted by neurological status, serum lactate level, renal function, initial rhythm, and the need of catecholamines. Using mCSRS, a significant survival difference was proven in between the groups "1-3" vs "4-6" (p Conclusion: Compared to the CSRS, the mCSRS expanded with the 2 additional weighting points differentiates more specifically the low-moderate and high survival groups in the PCAS patient population treated in our institute.Peer reviewe

Clinical Impact of Digitalis Therapy in a Large Multicenter Cohort of CRT-Recipients

(1) Introduction: Digitalis use in patients with severe heart failure is controversial. We assessed the effects of digitalis therapy on mortality in a large, observational study in recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Consecutive patients receiving a CRT-defibrillator in three European tertiary referral centers were enrolled and followed-up for a mean 37 months ± 28 months. Digitalis use was assessed at the time of CRT implantation. A multivariate Cox-regression model and propensity score matching were used to determine all-cause mortality as the primary endpoint. CRT-response (defined as improvement of ≥1 NYHA class), echocardiographic improvement (defined as improvement of LVEF of ≥ 5%) and incidence of ICD shocks and rehospitalization were assessed as secondary endpoints in a subgroup of patients. (3) Results: The study comprised 552 CRT-recipients with standard indications, including 219 patients (40%) treated with digitalis. Compared to patients without digitalis, they had more often atrial fibrillation, poorer LVEF and a higher NYHA class (all p ≤ 0.002). Crude analysis of all-cause mortality demonstrated a similar relative risk of death for patients with and without digitalis (HR = 1.14; 95% CI 0.88–1.5; p = 0.40). After adjustment for independent predictors of mortality, digitalis therapy did not alter the risk for death (adjusted HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.75–1.45; p = 0.82). Furthermore, in comparison to 286 propensity-score-matched patients, mortality was not affected by digitalis intake (propensity-adjusted HR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.72–1.70; p = 0.64). A CRT-response was predominant in digitalis non-users, concerning both improvement of HF symptoms and LVEF (NYHA p < 0.01; LVEF p < 0.01), while patients on digitalis had more often ventricular tachyarrhythmias requiring ICD shock (p = 0.01); although, rehospitalization for cardiac reasons was significantly lower among digitalis users compared to digitalis non-users (HR = 0.58; 95% C. I. 0.40–0.85; p = 0.01). (4) Conclusions: Digitalis therapy had no effect on mortality, but was associated with a reduced response to CRT and increased susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmias requiring ICD shock treatment. Although, digitalis administration positively altered the likelihood for cardiac rehospitalization during follow-up

Anterior wall ST-elevation myocardial infarction in biventricular paced rhythm: [case report].

There is a lack of evidence on electrocardiographic criteria for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients with biventricular paced rhythm. In all previous case reports of STEMI in biventricular paced rhythm, concordant ST-elevations and/or discordant ST-elevations >5 mm were present. This report describes the case of a patient with anterior STEMI and discordant ST-elevations of less than 5 mm during biventricular stimulation with epicardial left ventricular lead and highlights the importance of comparing the electrocardiogram to previous recordings when STEMI is suspected

Risk of cardiac arrhythmias after electrical accident: a single-center study of 480 patients

Objective: Patients with electrical injury are considered to be at high risk of cardiac arrhythmias. Due to the small number of studies, there is no widely accepted guideline regarding the risk assessment and management of arrhythmic complications after electrical accident (EA). Our retrospective observational study was designed to determine the prevalence of ECG abnormalities and cardiac arrhythmias after EA, to evaluate the predictive value of cardiac biomarkers for this condition and to assess in-hospital and 30-day mortality. Methods: Consecutive patients presenting after EA at the emergency department of our institution between 2011 and 2016 were involved in the current analysis. ECG abnormalities and arrhythmias were analyzed at admission and during ECG monitoring. Levels of cardiac troponin I, CK and CK-MB were also collected. In-hospital and 30-day mortality data were obtained from hospital records and from the national insurance database. Results: Of the 480 patients included, 184 (38.3%) had suffered a workplace accident. The majority of patients (96.2%) had incurred a low-voltage injury ( 100 bpm, n = 21, 4.4%). Other detected arrhythmias were as follows: newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (n = 1); frequent multifocal atrial premature complexes (n = 1); sinus arrest with atrial escape rhythm (n = 2); ventricular fibrillation terminated out of hospital (n = 1); ventricular bigeminy (n = 1); and repetitive nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (n = 1). ECG monitoring was performed in 182 (37.9%) patients for 12.7 ± 7.1 h at the ED. Except for one case with regular supraventricular tachycardia terminated via vagal maneuver and one other case with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, no clinically relevant arrhythmias were detected during the ECG monitoring. Cardiac troponin I was measured in 354 (73.8%) cases at 4.6 ± 4.3 h after the EA and was significantly elevated only in one resuscitated patient. CK elevation was frequent, but CK-MB was under 5% in all patients. Both in-hospital and 30-day mortality were 0%. Conclusions: Most of cardiac arrhythmias in patients presenting after EA can be diagnosed by an ECG on admission, thus routine ECG monitoring appears to be unnecessary. In our patient cohort cardiac troponin I and CK-MB were not useful in risk assessment after EA. Late-onset malignant arrhythmias were not observed