EURRECA-Evidence-Based Methodology for Deriving Micronutrient Recommendations

The EURopean micronutrient RECommendations Aligned (EURRECA) Network of Excellence explored the process of setting micronutrient recommendations to address the variance in recommendations across Europe. Work centered upon the transparent assessment of nutritional requirements via a series of systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. In addition, the necessity of assessing nutritional requirements and the policy context of setting micronutrient recommendations was investigated. Findings have been presented in a framework that covers nine activities clustered into four stages: stage one Defining the problem describes Activities 1 and 2: Identifying the nutrition-related health problem and Defining the process; stage two Monitoring and evaluating describes Activities 3 and 7: Establishing appropriate methods, and Nutrient intake and status of population groups; stage three Deriving dietary reference values describes Activities 4, 5, and 6: Collating sources of evidence, Appraisal of the evidence, and Integrating the evidence; stage four Using dietary reference values in policy making describes Activities 8 and 9: Identifying policy options, and Evaluating policy implementation. These activities provide guidance on how to resolve various issues when deriving micronutrient requirements and address the methodological and policy decisions, which may explain the current variation in recommendations across Europe. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition for the following free supplemental files: Additional text, tables, and figures.]This is the peer-reviewed version of the article: Dhonukshe-Rutten Rosalie, Bouwman Jildau, Brown Kerry A., Cavelaars Adrienne E., Collings Rachel, Grammatikaki Evangelia, de Groot Lisette, Gurinović Mirjana A., Harvey Linda, Hermoso Maria, Hurst Rachel, Kremer Bas, Ngo Joy, Novaković Romana, Raats Monique M., Rollin Fanny, Serra-Majem Lluis, Souverein Olga W., Timotijević Lada, van't Veer Pieter, "EURRECA-Evidence-Based Methodology for Deriving Micronutrient Recommendations" 53, no. 10 (2013):999-1040, [https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.749209

Externalized Reusable Permanent Pacemaker for Prolonged Temporary Cardiac Pacing in Critical Cardiac Care Units: An Observational Monocentric Retrospective Study

Introduction: The use of temporary cardiac pacing is frequent in critical care units for severe bradycardia or electrical storm, but may be associated with frequent and potentially severe complications, especially when indwelling for several days. In some cases, transient indication or ongoing contraindication for a permanent pacemaker justifies prolonged temporary pacing. In that case, the implantation of an active-fixation lead connected to an externalized pacemaker represents a valuable option to increase safety and patient comfort. Yet, evidence remains scarce. We aimed to describe the population receiving prolonged temporary cardiac pacing (PTCP) and their outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively included all consecutive patients, admitted to our hospital from 2016 to 2021, who underwent PTCP. We collected in-hospital and six-month outcomes. Results: Forty-six patients (median age of 73, 63% male) were included, and twenty-nine (63%) had prior heart disease. Indications for PTCP were found: seventeen (37%) potentially reversible high-grade conduction disorders, fourteen (30%) indications for permanent pacemaker but ongoing infection, seven (15%) cardiac implantable electronic device infections requiring extraction in pacing-dependent patients, seven (15%) severe vagal hyperreactivity in prolonged critical care hospitalizations, and one (2%) recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia requiring overdrive pacing. The median PTCP duration was nine (5–13) days. Ten (22%) patients exhibited at least one complication during hospitalization. Twenty-six (56.5%) patients required definite device implantation (twenty-five pacemakers and one cardioverter-defibrillator) and twenty (43.5%) did not (fifteen PTCP device removal for recovery and five deaths under PTCP). At six months, two (5%) deaths and two (5%) new infections of a definite implanted device occurred, all in patients with initial active infection. Conclusion: The use of prolonged temporary cardiac pacing, with an active -fixation lead connected to an externalized pacemaker, is possible and reasonable; this would allow for the possible recovery or resolution of contraindication for definite device implantation