HRS/EHRA/ECAS expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: Recommendations for personnel, policy, procedures and follow-up. A report of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) Task Force on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation

During the past decade, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) has evolved rapidly from a highly experimental unproven procedure, to its current status as a commonly performed ablation procedure in many major hospitals throughout the world. Surgical ablation of AF, using either standard or minimally invasive techniques, is also performed in many major hospitals throughout the world. The purpose of this Consensus Statement is to provide a state-of-the-art review of the field of catheter and surgical ablation of AF, and to report the findings of a Task Force, convened by the Heart Rhythm Society and charged with defining the indications, techniques, and outcomes of this procedure. The Heart Rhythm Society was pleased to develop this Consensus Statement in partnership with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society. This statement summarizes the opinion of the Task Force members based on their own experience in treating patients, as well as a review of the literature, and is directed to all health care professionals who are involved in the care of patients with AF, particularly those who are undergoing or are being considered for catheter or surgical ablation procedures for AF. This statement is not intended to recommend or promote catheter ablation of AF. Rather the ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the health care provider and patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. In writing a "consensus" document, it is recognized that consensus does not mean that there was complete agreement among all Task Force members. We attempted to identify those aspects of AF ablation for which a true "consensus" could be identified ( Tables 1 and 2 ). Surveys of the entire Task Force were used to identify these areas of consensus. The main objective of this document is

Optimising intraperitoneal gentamicin dosing in peritoneal dialysis patients with peritonitis (GIPD) study

Background: Antibiotics are preferentially delivered via the peritoneal route to treat peritonitis, a major complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), so that maximal concentrations are delivered at the site of infection. However, drugs administered intraperitoneally can be absorbed into the systemic circulation. Drugs excreted by the kidneys accumulate in PD patients, increasing the risk of toxicity. The aim of this study is to examine a model of gentamicin pharmacokinetics and to develop an intraperitoneal drug dosing regime that maximises bacterial killing and minimises toxicity

Dialysis-associated peritonitis in children

Peritonitis remains a frequent complication of peritoneal dialysis in children and is the most common reason for technique failure. The microbiology is characterized by a predominance of Gram-positive organisms, with fungi responsible for less than 5% of episodes. Data collected by the International Pediatric Peritonitis Registry have revealed a worldwide variation in the bacterial etiology of peritonitis, as well as in the rate of culture-negative peritonitis. Risk factors for infection include young age, the absence of prophylactic antibiotics at catheter placement, spiking of dialysis bags, and the presence of a catheter exit-site or tunnel infection. Clinical symptoms at presentation are somewhat organism specific and can be objectively assessed with a Disease Severity Score. Whereas recommendations for empiric antibiotic therapy in children have been published by the International Society of Peritoneal Dialysis, epidemiologic data and antibiotic susceptibility data suggest that it may be desirable to take the patient- and center-specific history of microorganisms and their sensitivity patterns into account when prescribing initial therapy. The vast majority of patients are treated successfully and continue peritoneal dialysis, with the poorest outcome noted in patients with peritonitis secondary to Gram-negative organisms or fungi and in those with a relapsing infection