| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Gorenek, Bulent, et al.
(author)
-
Cardiac arrhythmias in acute coronary syndromes : position paper from the joint EHRA, ACCA, and EAPCI task force
- 2014
-
In: EuroIntervention. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1774-024X .- 1969-6213. ; 16, s. 1655-1673
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It is known that myocardial ischaemia and infarction leads to severe metabolic and electrophysiological changes that induce silent or symptomatic life-threatening arrhythmias. Sudden cardiac death is most often attributed to this pathophysiology, but many patients survive the early stage of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) reaching a medical facility where the management of ischaemia and infarction must include continuous electrocardiographic (ECG) and hemodynamic monitoring, and a prompt therapeutic response to incident sustained arrhythmias. During the last decade, the hospital locations in which arrhythmias are most relevant have changed to include the cardiac catheterization laboratory, since the preferred management of early acute ACS is generally interventional in nature. However, a large proportion of patients are still managed medically.Both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias may occur in the setting of ACS and sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VAs) may be associated with circulatory collapse and require immediate treatment. Atrial fibrillation (AF) may also warrant urgent treatment when a fast ventricular rate is associated with hemodynamic deterioration. The management of other arrhythmias is also based largely on symptoms rather than to avert progression to more serious arrhythmias. Prophylactic antiarrhythmic management strategies have largely been discouraged.Although the mainstay of antiarrhythmic therapy used to rely on antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs), particularly sodium channel blockers and amiodarone, their use has now declined, since clinical evidence to support such treatment has never been convincing. Therapy for acute coronary syndrome and arrhythmia management are now based increasingly on invasive approaches. The changes in the clinical approach to arrhythmia management in ACS have been so substantial that the European Heart Rhythm Association, the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions established a task force to define the current position.
|
|
| 6. |
- Brignole, M., et al.
(author)
-
Comparative assessment of right, left, and biventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation
- 2005
-
In: Eur Heart J. - 0195-668X. ; 26:7, s. 712-22
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- AIMS: Left ventricular (LV) and biventricular (BiV) pacing are potentially superior to right ventricular (RV) apical pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and pacing for permanent atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective randomized, single-blind, 3-month crossover comparison between RV and LV pacing (phase 1) and between RV and BiV pacing (phase 2) performed in 56 patients (70+/-8 years, 34 males) affected by severely symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation, uncontrolled ventricular rate, or heart failure. Primary endpoints were quality of life and exercise capacity. Compared with RV pacing, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (LHFQ) score improved by 2 and 10% with LV and BiV pacing, respectively, the effort dyspnoea item of the Specific Symptom Scale (SSS) changed by 0 and 2%, the Karolinska score by 6 and 14% (P<0.05 for BiV), the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by 5 and 11% (P<0.05 for BiV), the 6-min walked distance by 12 (+4%) and 4 m (+1%), and the ejection fraction by 5 and 5% (P<0.05 for both). BiV pacing but not LV pacing was slightly better than RV pacing in the subgroup of patients with preserved systolic function and absence of native left bundle branch block. Compared with pre-ablation measures, the Minnesota LHFQ score improved by 37, 39, and 49% during RV, LV, and BiV pacing, respectively, the effort dyspnoea item of the SSS by 25, 25, and 39%, the Karolinska score by 39, 42, and 54%, the NYHA class by 21, 25, and 30%, the 6-min walking distance by 35 (12%), 47 (16%), and 51 m (19%) and the ejection fraction by 5, 10, and 10% (all differences P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Rhythm regularization achieved with AV-junction ablation improved quality of life and exercise capacity with all modes of pacing. LV and BiV pacing provided modest or no additional favourable effect compared with RV pacing.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
