 |
|
The journal section contains articles which might be of interest to people working in the area of cardiology. This section also contains downloadable copies of the society's bi-monthly e-journal NewsPulse.
Remember if you wish to automatically receive NewsPulse in your inbox or come across an article which may be of interest to others please let us know, editor@isct.ie
Previous editions of NewsPulse are available below for download. If the file does not open automatically, then right click on the link and select the "Save Target as" option.
NewsPulse Jun-Jul 2010
NewsPulse Mar-May 2010
NewsPulse Jan-Feb 2010
NewsPulse Oct 2009 Special ICS Edition
NewsPulse Aug-Sep 2009
NewsPulse May-July 2009
NewsPulse Mar-Apr 2009
NewsPulse Jan-Feb 2009
NewsPulse Nov-Dec 2008
NewsPulse Sept-Oct 2008
Below are abstracts of recent articles which may be of interest.
A wireless remote monitoring and notification system based on cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators and implantable cardioverter defibrillators cut the time from onset of events to clinical decisions in response to arrhythmias, CVD progression and device issues by nearly two-thirds, as compared with standard in-office care. The CONNECT study compared standard in-office care with a wireless telemetry system in 1,997 patients implanted with an ICD or cardiac resynchronization defibrillator. Patients assigned to remote monitoring received a home monitor capable of receiving a wireless telemetry system from the implanted device and automatically transmitting diagnostic information to the office over the phone, including routine scheduled information and alerts, requiring no patient action (n=1,014; 70.5% men; mean age, 65.2 years). These patients were seen in the office one month and 15 months after device implantation only. Patients assigned to standard care were followed-up in the office on a fixed schedule, typically every three to six months, and received no remote monitoring (n=983; 71.7% men; mean age, 64.9 years). Remote monitoring decreased the time from between onset of events to clinical decision making, a mean 10.5 days compared with 29.5 days with standard in-office care. Patients assigned to remote monitoring also experienced significant reductions in the average length of hospital stay (3.3 days vs. 4 days) compared with standard care. Replacement of routine in-clinic follow-up visits with remote transmissions did not increase other health care utilizations, such as CV hospitalizations and ED and unscheduled clinic visits. These improvements were associated with an average estimated savings of $1,659 per hospitalization for patients who received remote monitoring. “This system allows the clinician to better manage the patient’s disease by making critical information immediately available,” George H. Crossley, MD, president of Mid-State Cardiology and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, both in Nashville, TN, said in a press release. “By learning about clinical events earlier, we have the opportunity to intervene earlier, improve outcome and prevent disease progression.” CONNECT enrolled patients from 2006 to 2008; patient follow-up was completed in 2009. This study was funded by Medtronic, Inc
Reported on Cardiology News from the ACC Scientific Sessions
Chang AM; et al Am J Emerg Med. 2009; 27(8):916-21
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend treating patients with a new or presumed new left bundle-branch block (LBBB) similar to those with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. It is often unclear which emergency department (ED) patients with potentially ischemic symptoms actually have an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), even in the setting of LBBB. Our null hypothesis was that in ED patients with potential AMI, the presence of a new or presumed new LBBB would not predict an increased likelihood of AMI. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study. Patients older than 30 years who presented with chest pain or other ischemic equivalent and had an electrocardiogram (ECG) to evaluate potential acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were enrolled. Data collected include demographics, history, ECG, and cardiac markers. Electrocardiograms were classified according to the standardized guidelines, including LBBB not known to be old (new or presumed new LBBB), LBBB known to be old, or no LBBB. The hospital course was followed, and 30-day follow-up was performed on all patients. Our main outcome was AMI. RESULTS: There were 7937 visits (mean age, 54.3 +/- 15 years, 57% female, 68% black): 55 had new or presumed new LBBB, 136 had old LBBB, and 7746 had no LBBB. The rate of AMI was not significantly different between the 3 groups (7.3% vs 5.2% vs 6.1%; P = .75). Revascularization (7.8% vs old 5.2% vs 4.3%; P = .04) and coronary artery disease were more common in patients with new or presumed new LBBB (19.2% vs 11.9% vs 10.1%; P = .0004). CONCLUSIONS: Despite guideline recommendations that patients with potential ACS and new or presumed new LBBB should be treated similar to STEMI, ED patients with a new or presumed new LBBB are not at increased risk of AMI. In fact, the presence of LBBB, whether new or old, did not predict AMI. Caution should be used in applying recommendations derived from patients with definite AMI to ED patients with potential ACS that may or may not be sustaining an AMI.
If you have come across an interesting journal article please email it or a reference to editor@isct.org .
|
 |
