| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Dickstein, Kenneth, et al.
(författare)
-
CRT Survey II : a European Society of Cardiology survey of cardiac resynchronisation therapy in 11 088 patients-who is doing what to whom and how?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : WILEY. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 20:6, s. 1039-1051
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in appropriately selected patients with heart failure and is strongly recommended for such patients by guidelines. A European Society of Cardiology (ESC) CRT survey conducted in 2008-2009 showed considerable variation in guideline adherence and large individual, national and regional differences in patient selection, implantation practice and follow-up. Accordingly, two ESC associations, the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Failure Association, designed a second prospective survey to describe contemporary clinical practice regarding CRT. Methods and results A survey of the clinical practice of CRT-P and CRT-D implantation was conducted from October 2015 to December 2016 in 42 ESC member countries. Implanting centres provided information about their hospital and CRT service and were asked to complete a web-based case report form collecting information on patient characteristics, investigations, implantation procedures and complications during the index hospitalisation. The 11 088 patients enrolled represented 11% of the total number of expected implantations in participating countries during the survey period; 32% of patients were aged >= 75 years, 28% of procedures were upgrades from a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 30% were CRT-P rather than CRT-D. Most patients (88%) had a QRS duration >= 130 ms, 73% had left bundle branch block and 26% were in atrial fibrillation at the time of implantation. Large geographical variations in clinical practice were observed. Conclusion CRT Survey II provides a valuable source of information on contemporary clinical practice with respect to CRT implantation in a large sample of ESC member states. The survey permits assessment of guideline adherence and demonstrates variations in patient selection, management, implantation procedure and follow-up strategy.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Nieminen, M. S., et al.
(författare)
-
Repetitive use of levosimendan for treatment of chronic advanced heart failure : Clinical evidence, practical considerations, and perspectives: An expert panel consensus
- 2014
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0167-5273 .- 1874-1754. ; 174:2, s. 360-367
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The intravenous inodilator levosimendan was developed for the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. In the last decade scientific and clinical interest has arisen for its repetitive or intermittent use in patients with advanced chronic, but not necessarily acutely decompensated, heart failure. Recent studies have suggested long-lasting favourable effects of levosimendan when administered repetitively, in terms of haemodynamic parameters, neurohormonal and inflammatory markers, and clinical outcomes. The existing data, however, requires further exploration to allow for definitive conclusions on the safety and clinical efficacy of repetitive use of levosimendan. Methods and results: A panel of 30 experts from 15 countries convened to review and discuss the existing data, and agreed on the patient groups that can be considered to potentially benefit from intermittent treatment with levosimendan. The panel gave recommendations regarding patient dosing and monitoring, derived from the available evidence and from clinical experience. Conclusions: The current data suggest that in selected patients and support out-of-hospital care, intermittent/repetitive levosimendan can be used in advanced heart failure to maintain patient stability. Further studies are needed to focus on morbidity and mortality outcomes, dosing intervals, and patient monitoring. Recommendations for the design of further clinical studies are made. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Normand, Camilla, et al.
(författare)
-
Cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator : what determines the choice?-findings from the ESC CRT Survey II
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Europace. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1099-5129 .- 1532-2092. ; 21:6, s. 918-927
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: The decision to implant a cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P) or a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) may be challenging. There are no clear guideline recommendations as no randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been designed to compare the effects of CRT-P with those of CRT-D on patients' outcomes. In the CRT Survey II, we studied patient and implantation centre characteristics associated with the choice of CRT-P vs. CRT-D.METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical practice data from 10 692 patients undergoing CRT implantation of whom 7467 (70%) patients received a CRT-D and 3225 (30%) received a CRT-P across 42 ESC countries were collected and analysed between October 2015 and January 2017. Factors favouring the selection of CRT-P implantation included age >75 years, female gender, non-ischaemic heart failure (HF) aetiology, New York Heart Association functional Class III/IV symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction >25%, atrial fibrillation, atrioventricular (AV) block II/III, and implantation in a university hospital.CONCLUSION: In a large cohort from the CRT Survey II, we found that patients allocated to receive CRT-P exhibited particular phenotypes with more symptomatic HF, more frequent comorbidities, advanced age, female gender, non-ischaemic HF aetiology, atrial fibrillation, and evidence of AV block. There were substantial differences in the proportion of patients allocated to receive CRT-P vs. CRT-D between countries.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
