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

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

Economic outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bypass surgery for patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease: One-year results from the SYNTAX trial

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to revascularization for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD). Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that, despite higher initial costs, long-term costs with bypass surgery (CABG) in multivessel CAD are similar to those for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The impact of drug-eluting stents (DES) on these results is unknown. Methods: The SYNTAX trial randomized 1,800 patients with left main or three-vessel CAD to either CABG (n = 897) or PCI using paclitaxel-eluting stents (n = 903). Resource utilization data were collected prospectively for all patients, and cumulative 1-year costs were assessed from the perspective of the U.S. healthcare system. Results: Total costs for the initial hospitalization were $5,693/patient higher with CABG, whereas follow-up costs were$2,282/patient higher with PCI due mainly to more frequent revascularization procedures and higher outpatient medication costs. Total 1-year costs were thus $3,590/patient higher with CABG, while quality-adjusted life expectancy was slightly higher with PCI. Although PCI was an economically dominant strategy for the overall population, cost-effectiveness varied considerably according to angiographic complexity. For patients with high angiographic complexity (SYNTAX score > 32), total 1-year costs were similar for CABG and PCI, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for CABG was$43,486 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Conclusions: Among patients with three-vessel or left main CAD, PCI is an economically attractive strategy over the first year for patients with low and moderate angiographic complexity, while CABG is favored among patients with high angiographic complexity

Recurrent Hospitalization Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Intracoronary Stenting Treated With 2 Treatment Strategies of Rivaroxaban or a Dose-Adjusted Oral Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment Strategy

Contains fulltext : 169804.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Patients with atrial fibrillation who undergo intracoronary stenting traditionally are treated with a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), yet this treatment leads to high risks of bleeding. We hypothesized that a regimen of rivaroxaban plus a P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy or rivaroxaban plus DAPT could reduce bleeding and thereby have a favorable impact on all-cause mortality and the need for rehospitalization. METHODS: Stented subjects with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (n=2124) were randomized 1:1:1 to administration of reduced-dose rivaroxaban 15 mg daily plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months (group 1); rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with stratification to a prespecified duration of DAPT of 1, 6, or 12 months (group 2); or the reference arm of dose-adjusted VKA daily with a similar DAPT stratification (group 3). The present post hoc analysis assessed the end point of all-cause mortality or recurrent hospitalization for an adverse event, which was further classified as the result of bleeding, a cardiovascular cause, or another cause blinded to treatment assignment. RESULTS: The risk of all-cause mortality or recurrent hospitalization was 34.9% in group 1 (hazard ratio=0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.94; P=0.008 versus group 3; number needed to treat=15), 31.9% in group 2 (hazard ratio=0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.90; P=0.002 versus group 3; number needed to treat=10), and 41.9% in group 3 (VKA+DAPT). Both all-cause death plus hospitalization potentially resulting from bleeding (group 1=8.6% [P=0.032 versus group 3], group 2=8.0% [P=0.012 versus group 3], and group 3=12.4%) and all-cause death plus rehospitalization potentially resulting from a cardiovascular cause (group 1=21.4% [P=0.001 versus group 3], group 2=21.7% [P=0.011 versus group 3], and group 3=29.3%) were reduced in the rivaroxaban arms compared with the VKA arm, but other forms of rehospitalization were not. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing intracoronary stenting, administration of either rivaroxaban 15 mg daily plus P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy or 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus DAPT was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality or recurrent hospitalization for adverse events compared with standard-of-care VKA plus DAPT. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01830543

Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer reviewe

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection