The role of the renin-angiotensin system in atrial fibrillation and the therapeutic effects of ACE-Is and ARBS.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common rhythm disturbance in medical practice and represents a very expensive health problem. AF can be managed with the prevention of thromboembolism and either a rate control of rhythm strategy. As both strategies have important limitations, probably a preventative strategy in patients at risk of developing arrhythmia can be a more attractive option. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) seems to be involved in the genesis of arrhythmia by the following two mechanisms: 1. the induction of atrial fibrosis and structural remodelling by mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) expression and reduction of collagenase activity; 2. the induction of electrical remodelling by shortening of the atrial effective refractory period (AERP) and of the action potential duration. For these reasons it has been hypothesized that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) may play a role in preventing AF recurrence. The aim of the present review was to analyse evidence supporting the usefulness of RAS inhibition in patients with AF in order to focus on which specific subset of patients it would most favour. After reviewing the literature, we conclude that, although many studies and meta-analysis have supported the advantage of RAS block in preventing AF recurrence, it is premature to recommend the use of ACE-Is and ARBs specifically for the prevention of AF. However we believe that as these drugs are safe and manageable, they should be considered the drugs of choice in patients with AF and coexisting clinical conditions such as hypertension, coronary disease, heart failure and diabetes mellitus.

Staff Satisfaction in the Functionalisation of Psychiatric In-patient Care.

In many UK mental health services, in-patient psychiatric care is being separated from community care by having dedicated in-patient medical team. We evaluated staff satisfaction in this functionalised in-patient care. A survey was conducted amongst multidisciplinary staff from various teams using a questionnaire survey. On an average 14.3% of staff returned a satisfactory response for functionalisation, 57.3% had unsatisfactory response and others were undecided or perceived no change. There was no difference in responses amongst age, gender and professional groups. Mean scores of all groups were within unsatisfactory domain; however community staff compared to in-patient staff and staff with more than 5 years of experience compared to those with 1-5 years of experience returned significantly more unsatisfactory responses regarding functionalisation. Many positive and negative aspects of functionalisation were raised. The results of this evaluation suggest the need for further studies on the effectiveness of in-patient functionalisation. Short and long term clinical outcomes and the satisfaction of the patients should also be studied.