Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Therapy in Patients with Cardiac Sarcoidosis

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93643/1/j.1540-8167.2012.02350.x.pd

Comparison of Inappropriate Shocks and Other Health Outcomes Between Single- and Dual-Chamber Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death: Results From the Cardiovascular Research Network Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators

BACKGROUND: In US clinical practice, many patients who undergo placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death receive dual-chamber devices. The superiority of dual-chamber over single-chamber devices in reducing the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks in clinical practice has not been established. The objective of this study was to compare risk of adverse outcomes, including inappropriate shocks, between single- and dual-chamber ICDs for primary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified patients receiving a single- or dual-chamber ICD for primary prevention who did not have an indication for pacing from 15 hospitals within 7 integrated health delivery systems in the Longitudinal Study of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators from 2006 to 2009. The primary outcome was time to first inappropriate shock. ICD shocks were adjudicated for appropriateness. Other outcomes included all-cause hospitalization, heart failure hospitalization, and death. Patient, clinician, and hospital-level factors were accounted for using propensity score weighting methods. Among 1042 patients without pacing indications, 54.0% (n=563) received a single-chamber device and 46.0% (n=479) received a dual-chamber device. In a propensity-weighted analysis, device type was not significantly associated with inappropriate shock (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-1.38 [P=0.65]), all-cause hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.21 [P=0.76]), heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-1.21 [P=0.59]), or death (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.53 [P=0.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received an ICD for primary prevention without indications for pacing, dual-chamber devices were not associated with lower risk of inappropriate shock or differences in hospitalization or death compared with single-chamber devices. This study does not justify the use of dual-chamber devices to minimize inappropriate shocks

HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS/ACC/AHA worldwide practice update for telehealth and arrhythmia monitoring during and after a pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), started in the city of Wuhan late in 2019. Within a few months, the disease spread toward all parts of the world and was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The current health care dilemma worldwide is how to sustain the capacity for quality services not only for those suffering from COVID-19 but also for non-COVID-19 patients, all while protecting physicians, nurses, and other allied health care workers

Device Therapies Among Patients Receiving Primary Prevention Implantable Cardioverterâ Defibrillators in the Cardiovascular Research Network

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143721/1/jah33061_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143721/2/jah33061.pd

Quality indicators for the care and outcomes of adults with atrial fibrillation

Aims To develop quality indicators (QIs) that may be used to evaluate the quality of care and outcomes for adults with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results We followed the ESC methodology for QI development. This methodology involved (i) the identification of the domains of AF care for the diagnosis and management of AF (by a group of experts including members of the ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines Task Force for AF); (ii) the construction of candidate QIs (including a systematic review of the literature); and (iii) the selection of the final set of QIs (using a modified Delphi method). Six domains of care for the diagnosis and management of AF were identified: (i) Patient assessment (baseline and follow-up), (ii) Anticoagulation therapy, (iii) Rate control strategy, (iv) Rhythm control strategy, (v) Risk factor management, and (vi) Outcomes measures, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). In total, 17 main and 17 secondary QIs, which covered all six domains of care for the diagnosis and management of AF, were selected. The outcome domain included measures on the consequences and treatment of AF, as well as PROMs. Conclusion This document defines six domains of AF care (patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor management, and outcomes), and provides 17 main and 17 secondary QIs for the diagnosis and management of AF. It is anticipated that implementation of these QIs will improve the quality of AF care