119 research outputs found

    Outpatient prescription practices in patients with atrial fibrillation (from the NCDR PINNACLE registry)

    Get PDF
    This study sought to evaluate inappropriate prescribing practices in an atrial fibrillation (AF) population, as outlined by the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults with Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter document. The 2016 AF quality measures document specified medications to avoid in certain AF populations, including aspirin and anticoagulant combination therapy in patients without cardiovascular disease, and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in patients with reduced ejection fraction. Using data from the NCDR PINNACLE registry, a national outpatient cardiology practice registry, we assessed rates of inappropriate prescription of two types of medications among AF outpatients from 5/1/2008-5/1/2016. Overall rates of inappropriate prescription and variation by practice were calculated. Patient and practice factors associated with inappropriate prescription were assessed in adjusted analyses. A total of 107,759 of 658,250 (16.4%) patients without cardiovascular disease were inappropriately prescribed an antiplatelet and anticoagulant together, and 5,731 of 150,079 (3.8%) patients with reduced ejection fraction were inappropriately prescribed a non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker. Overall, 14.8% of AF patients were prescribed medications that were not recommended. Both patient and practice factors were associated with inappropriate prescribing, and the adjusted practice-level median odds ratio for inappropriate prescription was 1.70 (95% CI: 1.61-1.82), indicating a 70% likelihood that 2 random practices would treat identical AF patients differently. In a large registry of AF patients treated in cardiology practices, overall rates of inappropriate prescription practices, as defined by the 2016 AF quality measures, were relatively low, but significant practice variation was present

    Programmed inappropriate ICD ventricular defibrillation for cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation

    Get PDF
    In this report we briefly describe a patient with a dual chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator in the context of severe ischemic cardiomyopathy who developed persistent atrial fibrillation. After appropriate anticoagulation and under mild sedation the patient was successfully cardioverted to sinus rhythm after a programmed ventricular synchronized defibrillation using his defibrillator. Programmed internal cardioversion of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients who have an implantable cardioverter defibillator without atrial defibrillation capabilities could be an effective and safe therapeutic option. Unlike external electrical cardioversion, this strategy does not interfere with the implantable cardioverter defibrillator, is more effective, and obviates the need of general anesthesia. This strategy should be further evaluated in clinical trials

    Immediate and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on physical activity in patients with implanted cardiac devices

    Get PDF
    Background: Physical activity (PA) is an important determinant of cardiovascular health that may be affected the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we examined the immediate and long-term effects of the pandemic and lockdown on PA in patients with established cardiovascular risk. Methods: Objectively-measured daily PA data was obtained from cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) from 3453 U.S patients (mean and standard deviations [SD] age, 72.65 [13.24] years; 42% women). Adjusted mixed-effects models stratified by device type were used to compare daily PA from periods in 2020: pre-lockdown (March 1–14), lockdown (March 15 to May 8), and the reopening phase of the pandemic (May 9 to December 31) versus 2019. Patient characteristics and events associated with inactivity during lockdown and the proportion of patients who returned to their 2019 PA-level by the end of reopening phase (December 31, 2020) were examined. Results: Daily PA was significantly lower during the lockdown compared to the same period in 2019 (−15%; p <.0001), especially for pacemaker patients, adults aged <65, and patients more active prior to lockdown. Non-COVID hospitalization and ICD shock were similarly associated with low PA during lockdown (p =.0001). In the reopening phase of the pandemic, PA remained 14.4% lower in the overall sample and only 23% of patients returned to their 2019 PA level by the end of follow-up. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with CIEDs, PA was markedly lower during the lockdown and remained lower for months after restrictions were lifted. Strategies to maintain PA during a national emergency are urgently needed

    Prediction of fatal or near-fatal cardiac arrhythmia events in patients with depressed left ventricular function after an acute myocardial infarction†

    Get PDF
    To determine whether risk stratification tests can predict serious arrhythmic events after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <= 0.40). A total of 5869 consecutive patients were screened in 10 European centres, and 312 patients (age 65 +/- 11 years) with a mean LVEF of 31 +/- 6% were included in the study. Heart rate variability/turbulence, ambient arrhythmias, signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG), T-wave alternans, and programmed electrical stimulation (PES) were performed 6 weeks after AMI. The primary endpoint was ECG-documented ventricular fibrillation or symptomatic sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). To document these arrhythmic events, the patients received an implantable ECG loop-recorder. There were 25 primary endpoints (8.0%) during the follow-up of 2 years. The strongest predictors of primary endpoint were measures of heart rate variability, e.g. hazard ratio (HR) for reduced very-low frequency component ( <5.7 ln ms(2)) adjusted for clinical variables was 7.0 (95% CI: 2.4-20.3, P <0.001). Induction of sustained monomorphic VT during PES (adjusted HR = 4.8, 95% CI, 1.7-13.4, P = 0.003) also predicted the primary endpoint. Fatal or near-fatal arrhythmias can be predicted by many risk stratification methods, especially by heart rate variability, in patients with reduced LVEF after AM

    Cost-effectiveness of a stepped-care intervention to prevent major depression in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or coronary heart disease and subthreshold depression: design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Co-morbid major depression is a significant problem among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or coronary heart disease and this negatively impacts quality of life. Subthreshold depression is the most important risk factor for the development of major depression. Given the highly significant association between depression and adverse health outcomes and the limited capacity for depression treatment in primary care, there is an urgent need for interventions that successfully prevent the transition from subthreshold depression into a major depressive disorder. Nurse led stepped-care is a promising way to accomplish this. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led indicated stepped-care program to prevent major depression among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or coronary heart disease in primary care who also have subthreshold depressive symptoms.Methods/design: An economic evaluation will be conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial in approximately thirty general practices in the Netherlands. Randomization takes place at the level of participating practice nurses. We aim to include 236 participants who will either receive a nurse-led indicated stepped-care program for depressive symptoms or care as usual. The stepped-care program consists of four sequential but flexible treatment steps: 1) watchful waiting, 2) guided self-help treatment, 3) problem solving treatment and 4) referral to the general practitioner. The primary clinical outcome measure is the cumulative incidence of major depressive disorder as measured with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Secondary outcomes include severity of depressive symptoms, quality of life, anxiety and physical outcomes. Costs will be measured from a societal perspective and include health care utilization, medication and lost productivity costs. Measurements will be performed at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.Discussion: The intervention being investigated is expected to prevent new cases of depression among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or coronary heart disease and subthreshold depression, with subsequent beneficial effects on quality of life, clinical outcomes and health care costs. When proven cost-effective, the program provides a viable treatment option in the Dutch primary care system.Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR3715. © 2013 van Dijk et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

    Executive Summary: HRS/EHRA/APHRS Expert Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Inherited Primary Arrhythmia Syndromes

    Get PDF
    n/

    Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care for chronically ill patients with comorbid depressive disorder in the general hospital setting, a randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background. Depressive disorder is one of the most common disorders, and is highly prevalent in chronically ill patients. The presence of comorbid depression has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Early diagnosis and well-organized treatment of depression has a positive influence on these aspects. Earlier research in the USA has reported good results with regard to the treatment of depression with a collaborative care approach and an antidepressant algorithm. In the UK 'Problem Solving Treatment' has proved to be feasible. However, in the general hospital setting this approach has not yet been evaluated. Methods/Design. CC: DIM (Collaborative Care: Depression Initiative in the Medical setting) is a two-armed randomised controlled trial with randomisation at patient level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in general hospitals in the Netherlands based on a collaborative care framework, including contracting, 'Problem Solving Treatment', antidepressant algorithm, and manual-guided self-help. 126 outpatients with diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cardiovascular diseases will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Patients will be included if they have been diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on the DSM-IV criteria in a two-step screening method. The intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach; the control group will receive 'care as usual'. Baseline and follow-up measurements (after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) will be performed by means of questionnaires. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, as measured with the PHQ-9. The secondary outcome measure is the cost-effectiveness of these treatments according to the TiC-P, the EuroQol and the SF-36. Discussion. Earlier research has indicated that depressive disorder is a chronic, mostly recurrent illness, which tends to cluster with physical comorbidity. Even though the treatment of depressive disorder based on the guidelines for depression is proven effective, these guidelines are often insufficiently adhered to. Collaborative care and 'Problem Solving Treatment' will be specifically tailored to patients with depressive disorders and evaluated in a general hospital setting in the Netherlands

    HRS/EHRA/APHRS Expert Consensus Statement on the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Inherited Primary Arrhythmia Syndromes

    Get PDF
    Non disponibil

    Cost-effectiveness of collaborative care including PST and an antidepressant treatment algorithm for the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care; a randomised clinical trial

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Depressive disorder is currently one of the most burdensome disorders worldwide. Evidence-based treatments for depressive disorder are already available, but these are used insufficiently, and with less positive results than possible. Earlier research in the USA has shown good results in the treatment of depressive disorder based on a collaborative care approach with Problem Solving Treatment and an antidepressant treatment algorithm, and research in the UK has also shown good results with Problem Solving Treatment. These treatment strategies may also work very well in the Netherlands too, even though health care systems differ between countries. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a two-armed randomised clinical trial, with randomization on patient-level. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands by means of an adapted collaborative care framework, including contracting and adherence-improving strategies, combined with Problem Solving Treatment and antidepressant medication according to a treatment algorithm. Forty general practices will be randomised to either the intervention group or the control group. Included will be patients who are diagnosed with moderate to severe depression, based on DSM-IV criteria, and stratified according to comorbid chronic physical illness. Patients in the intervention group will receive treatment based on the collaborative care approach, and patients in the control group will receive care as usual. Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) are assessed using questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is severity of depressive symptoms, according to the PHQ9. Secondary outcome measures are remission as measured with the PHQ9 and the IDS-SR, and cost-effectiveness measured with the TiC-P, the EQ-5D and the SF-36. DISCUSSION: In this study, an American model to enhance care for patients with a depressive disorder, the collaborative care model, will be evaluated for effectiveness in the primary care setting. If effective across the Atlantic and across different health care systems, it is also likely to be an effective strategy to implement in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Netherlands
    corecore