Palpitations: Evaluation, Management, and Wearable Smart Devices.

Palpitations are a common symptom described by patients as a feeling of a racing or fluttering heart, a pounding chest, irregular or skipped heartbeats, or a pounding sensation in the neck. They are associated with a low mortality rate; however, recurrent palpitations have been shown to impair quality of life and increase health care use. Common triggers are cardiac disorders, endocrine and metabolic disorders, medication or illicit drug use, or psychosomatic disorders. A detailed history, physical examination, directed laboratory studies, and 12-lead electrocardiography are often sufficient to identify the etiology of palpitations. Additional testing may be indicated to include echocardiography, cardiac stress testing, electrocardiogram monitoring, or electrophysiologic studies to distinguish whether symptoms correlate with cardiac arrhythmia or structural or ischemic heart disease. Management of palpitations is based on the suspected etiology. In most cases of cardiac-induced palpitations, the treatment can include reassurance, education, trigger avoidance, or use of atrioventricular nodal blockers. Tachyarrhythmias may require cardiac ablation. Patients who have palpitations with no arrhythmia causality and no cardiac disease should be reassured; however, screening for psychosomatic disorders should be considered. Wearable smart devices with ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring technologies are currently available to consumers; these tools have shown diagnostic accuracy for detection of arrhythmias, allowing patients to have greater participation in their health care. Am Fam Physician. 2024; 110(3):259-269.

Development of a Vertically Integrated Trainee Program: Linking Future and Young Physicians.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

From trenches to technology: a narrative review of sleep medicine in the military.

Diagnoses of military-relevant sleep disorders have increased substantially since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The cause of this increase appears to be complicated and multifactorial, with military and civilian populations clearly differing with respect to both the nature and distribution of sleep disorders diagnoses. In part, these differences may be attributable to the fact that a majority of service members are chronically sleep-restricted-an unavoidable consequence of continuous and sustained military operations that "set the stage" for development of specific sleep disorders. The purpose of this narrative review is to describe the military relevance of several common sleep disorders, assess the extent to which these disorders currently constitute a burden on the military health care system, and suggest strategies to alleviate that burden. The military health care system does not have enough sleep medicine providers to address the immediate and long-term consequences of sleep disorders in military personnel. Digital technologies and education packages can be leveraged to improve access to care. CITATION: Thomas CL, Carr K, Yang F, et al. From trenches to technology: a narrative review of sleep medicine in the military. J Clin Sleep Med. 2024;20(6):973-981.

Outcomes Associated With Intensive Care and Organ Support Among Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate accounting of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) critical care outcomes has important implications for health care delivery. RESEARCH QUESTION: We aimed to determine critical care and organ support outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) COVID-19 patients and whether they varied depending on the completeness of study follow-up or admission time period. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of reports describing ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mortality. A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases.We included English language observational studies of COVID-19 patients, reporting ICU admission, MV, and ICU case fatality, published from December 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. We excluded reports of less than 5 ICU patients and pediatric populations. Study characteristics, patient demographics, and outcomes were extracted from each article. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed based on the admission end date and the completeness of data. RESULTS: Of 6,778 generated articles, 145 were retained for inclusion (n = 60,357 patients). Case fatality rates across all studies were 34.0% (95% CI = 30.7%, 37.5%, P < 0.001) for ICU deaths, 47.9% (95% CI = 41.6%, 54.2%, P < 0.001) for MV deaths, 58.7% (95% CI = 50.0%, 67.2%, P < 0.001) for RRT deaths, and 43.3% (95% CI = 31.4%, 55.4%, P < 0.001) for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation deaths. There was no statistically significant difference in ICU and organ support outcomes between studies with complete follow-up versus studies without complete follow-up. Case fatality rates for ICU, MV, and RRT deaths were significantly higher in studies with patients admitted before April 31st 2020. INTERPRETATION: Coronavirus disease 2019 critical care outcomes have significantly improved since the start of the pandemic. Intensive care unit outcomes should be evaluated contextually (study quality, data completeness, and time) for the most accurate reporting and to effectively guide mortality predictions.

Intensive Care and Organ Support Related Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to generate estimates of mortality in patients with COVID-19 that required hospitalization, ICU admission, and organ support. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases was conducted up to December 31, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Previously peer-reviewed observational studies that reported ICU, mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-related mortality among greater than or equal to 100 individual patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled estimates of case fatality rates (CFRs) for in-hospital, ICU, MV, RRT, and ECMO-related mortality. ICU-related mortality was additionally analyzed by the study country of origin. Sensitivity analyses of CFR were assessed based on completeness of follow-up data, by year, and when only studies judged to be of high quality were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: One hundred fifty-seven studies evaluating 948,309 patients were included. The CFR for in-hospital mortality, ICU mortality, MV, RRT, and ECMO were 25.9% (95% CI: 24.0-27.8%), 37.3% (95% CI: 34.6-40.1%), 51.6% (95% CI: 46.1-57.0%), 66.1% (95% CI: 59.7-72.2%), and 58.0% (95% CI: 46.9-68.9%), respectively. MV (52.7%, 95% CI: 47.5-58.0% vs 31.3%, 95% CI: 16.1-48.9%; p = 0.023) and RRT-related mortality (66.7%, 95% CI: 60.1-73.0% vs 50.3%, 95% CI: 42.4-58.2%; p = 0.003) decreased from 2020 to 2021. CONCLUSIONS: We present updated estimates of CFR for patients hospitalized and requiring intensive care for the management of COVID-19. Although mortality remain high and varies considerably worldwide, we found the CFR in patients supported with MV significantly improved since 2020.