Remote ECG monitoring to reduce complications following transcatheter aortic valve implantations: the Redirect TAVI study.

AIMS: The optimal strategy of monitoring for conduction disturbances in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is uncertain. We evaluated a pre- and post-TAVI remote ambulatory cardiac monitoring (rACM) strategy for identification of conduction disturbances and to reduce unplanned pre-discharge post-TAVI permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: REdireCT TAVI (NCT0381820) was a prospective cohort study of patients referred for outpatient TAVI. Patients with prior PPMI were excluded. Remote ambulatory cardiac monitoring consisted of 2 weeks of continuous electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring (Pocket-ECGTM) both before and after TAVI. Compliance to monitoring, frequency of notifications, unplanned PPMI post-TAVI, and length of hospitalization were measured. Between June 2018 and March 2020, in 192 undergoing TAVI (mean age: 81.8 years; female sex 46%; balloon-expandable valve 95.3%), compliance to rACM was 91.7% pre-TAVI (mean duration: 12.8 days), and 87.5% post-TAVI (mean duration: 12.9 days). There were 24 (12.5%) rACM notifications (13 pre-TAVI; 11 post-TAVI) resulting in 14 (7.3%) planned PPMI: seven pre-TAVI [due to sinus pauses n = 2 or atrio-ventricular block (AVB) n = 5] and seven post-TAVI [due to sinus pauses n = 1 or AVB n = 5 or ventricular tachycardia (VT) n = 1]. In addition, nine (4.7%) patients received pre-TAVI PPMI due to high-risk baseline ECG (right bundle branch block with hemi-block or prolonged PR interval). Unplanned PPMI post-TAVI during index hospitalization occurred in six (3.1%) patients due to AVB and in one patient readmitted with AVB. The median length of stay post-TAVI was 1 day. CONCLUSION: A strategy of routine rACM was feasible and frequently led to PPMI. Our approach of 2-week rACM both pre- and post-TAVI achieves both high patient compliance and sufficient surveillance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03810820.

Effect of air filtration systems on asthma: a systematic review of randomized trials.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence of randomized trials evaluating the effects of residential air filtration systems on patients with asthma. DATA SOURCES: We searched for published and unpublished studies using MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Collaboration. We reviewed all reference lists for additional articles of relevance, and contacted experts in the field and air filter manufacturers. STUDY SELECTION: We identified 10 relevant randomized controlled trials that examined the influence of a residential air filtration system on patients with asthma. DATA EXTRACTION: In duplicate and independently, we abstracted data on the methodologic quality, population, intervention, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Five of 10 studies enrolled adults only. One study included children only. The sample size ranged from 9 to 45 participants in each study, for a total of 216 patients across all studies. Two studies reported a statistically significant decrease in airway responsiveness associated with air filter utilization. Air filters were associated with significantly lower total symptom scores (weighted mean difference of 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.25) on a 10-point scale, and lower sleep disturbance score (weighted mean difference of 0.93; 95% CI, 1.44 to 0.42); however, heterogeneity of results weakens the inferences from these trials. Air filtration systems were not associated with any differences in medication use or morning peak expiratory flow values. None of these trials employed validated scales to measure clinical symptoms or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with allergies and asthma, use of air filters is associated with fewer symptoms. Rigorous sufficiently powered randomized clinical trials are needed to more precisely define the influence of air filtration on health-related quality of life and symptom control for asthmatic patients.

Does maximal androgen blockade (MAB) improve survival? A critical appraisal of the evidence.

The conflicting data surrounding the benefit of total androgen blockade compared to monotherapy for metastatic prostate cancer is reviewed. The recent Lancet meta-analysis is critically appraised. A sensitivity analysis of the studies is presented.