Radiation Safety and Electrophysiologists: Radiation Protection Status - Go for Zero Fluoroscopy European Heart Rhythm Association Registry.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze electrophysiologists' radiation-protective devices for occupational exposure across European countries. METHODS: Data reported herein were gathered from the international, multicenter prospective Go for Zero Fluoroscopy registry performed in years 2018-2019. The registry encompassed 25 European electrophysiological centers from 14 countries and up to 5 operators from each center. RESULTS: The analysis included 95 operators (median age: 39 years, 85% of male, median training time: 5 years). The most frequently used X-ray protection tools (used by ≥80% of the group) were lead aprons, thyroid shields, screens below the table, glass in the laboratory, and least often (<7%) protective gloves and cabin. No statistically significant differences regarding the number of procedures performed monthly, electrophysiologists' experience and gender, and radiation exposure dose or radiation protection tools were observed, except lead thyroid shields and eyeglasses, which were more often used in case of fewer electrophysiological procedures performed (<20 procedures per month). Operators who were protected by >4 X-ray protection tools were exposed to lower radiation levels than those who were protected by ≤4 X-ray protection tools (median radiation exposure: 0.6 [0.2-1.1] vs. 0.2 [0.1-0.2] mSv per month, p < 0.0001; 1.1 [0.1-12.0] vs. 0.5 [0.1-1.1] mSv per year, p < 0.0001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Electrophysiologists' radiation-protective devices for occupational exposure are similar across European centers and in accordance with the applicable X-ray protection protocols, irrespective of the level of experience, number of monthly performed EP procedures, and gender.

District versus academic hospitals: clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation.

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased hospitalization. Objectives: We aimed to compare long-term outcomes in patients with AF hospitalized in academic and district hospitals. Patients and methods: This retrospective observational study included data from the Multicenter Experience in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with Oral Anticoagulants (CRAFT; NCT02987062) study which included AF patients hospitalized between 2011 and 2016 in academic and district hospitals. The primary end point was a major adverse event (MAE) defined as all-cause death and thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events during the median 4-year follow-up. Results: We analyzed 2983 patients with AF: 2271 (76%) from academic and 712 (24%) from district hospitals. Patients treated in district hospitals, as compared with patients treated in academic hospitals, more often experienced MAEs (53% vs 37%; P <⁠0.001), all-cause death (40% vs 24%; P <⁠0.001), and thromboembolic events (13% vs 7.8%; P <⁠0.001), with similar rates of hemorrhagic events (15% vs 15%; P = 1.00). In multivariable logistic regression, female sex, coronary artery disease, smoking, and antiplatelet drug therapy were associated with greater likelihood of thromboembolic events in academic hospitals. Heart failure, renal failure, and vitamin K antagonist (in academic hospitals), and coronary artery disease (in district hospitals) were associated with greater likelihood of hemorrhagic events. District (vs academic) conditions were associated with higher risk of MAEs and all-cause death in men and those with low risk of bleeding, and with higher incidence of thromboembolic events in women, elderly patients, and those with high risk of bleeding and with diabetes. Conclusions: Patients with AF treated at district hospitals had worse long-term outcomes than those treated in academic conditions.

Utilisation of lipid-lowering therapies in outpatient settings in Poland: epidemiological survey Economedica Dyslipidaemia 2015.

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidaemia, especially elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), is one of the most important cardiovascular risk factors. Treatment of dyslipidaemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with lipid-lowering drugs is one of the key issues in reducing cardiovascular mortality. Nevertheless, underutilisation of statins and lipid-lowering drugs is still a problem globally. AIM: The present study aimed to describe the utilisation of lipid-lowering drugs in groups of patients with indications for statin treatment and elevated LDL-C. METHODS: The study included adult patients with an indication for the use of a lipid-lowering therapy, currently using or not using such therapy because of contraindications or statin intolerance, in whom LDL-C concentration was > 70 mg/dL, treated in outpatient settings. All patients were screened for CVD and had blood cholesterol concentration assessed. Patients were also divided into: (1) patients with vascular disease; (2) patients with diabetes mellitus; (3) aged ≥ 65 years; and (4) patients without the three mentioned risk factors. RESULTS: The study group consisted of 2812 (51.4% male) patients. Major cardiovascular risk factors including arterial hyper-tension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and smoking were highly prevalent in the study population (86.2%, 44.1%, and 23.3%, respectively). Out of the prespecified risk factors (vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, age ≥ 65 years) the study population was divided into patients without any of the mentioned risk factors (n = 520), those with all the three risk factors (n = 368), two out of three risk factors (n = 934), and one risk factor (n = 990). The study showed that 89.6% of patients were treated with statins (47.8% with atorvastatin, 27.8% with rosuvastatin, and 13.8% with simvastatin). Fenofibrate was used in 5.8% of the population and ezetimibe in 2.7%. In the whole group, 7.1% of patients did not receive any type of lipid-lowering therapy. Atorvastatin was more often used in patients with all the three prespecified risk factors, while rosuvastatin was used in patients without any of the risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: The most often-used lipid-lowering drugs in Poland are statins, with atorvastatin and rosuvastatin being used the most common of these. The present study shows that some patients with LDL-C concentration > 70 mg/dL and indications for lipid-lowering are not treated accordingly.

Assessment of cardiovascular risk in patients undergoing total joint alloplasty: the CRASH-JOINT study.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is of particular importance for patients undergoing surgical interventions. Orthopaedic procedures, especially total joint alloplasty, are major procedures associated with high perioperative risk, as well as one of the highest rates of complications. AIM: The aim of the present study was to establish the prevalence of classical and non-classical cardiovascular risk factors in patients undergoing total hip or knee alloplasty. METHODS: The CRASH-JOINT (Cardiovascular Risk Assessment ScHeme in JOINT alloplasty) was a prospective, epidemiological study performed in consecutive patients scheduled for total joint (hip or knee) replacement surgery. Patients enrolled into the study were screened for cardiovascular risk factors and had ambulatory blood pressure performed for the diagnosis of hypertension. RESULTS: The present study enrolled 98 patients. During initial screening eight patients were disqualified from the study and the surgery, in the majority due to the cardiac causes. Sixty-five patients had a hip joint replacement and 25 had knee joint replacement (mean age 63.7 ± 12.2 years, 62.2% female). Fifty (55.6%) patients were diagnosed with arterial hypertension in the past, ten (11.1%) patients had diabetes mellitus, two (2.2%) had a history of myocardial infarction, and family history of cardiovascular disease was present in 24 (26.7%) cases. Mean body mass index (BMI) was 28.0 ± 5.1 kg/m² and 39 (43.3%) patients were overweight, while 28 (31.1%) were obese. Patients undergoing hip replacement were significantly younger (61.8 ± 12.6 vs. 68.5 ± 10.0 years; p = 0.02), were more often current smokers (24.6% vs. 4.0%; p = 0.03), had significantly lower BMI (26.8 ± 4.5 vs. 31.2 ± 5.3 kg/m²; p < 0.0001), and were less often obese (18.5% vs. 64.0%; p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences between patients scheduled for primary surgery and reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that classical cardiovascular risk factors in patients undergoing total hip or knee alloplasty have a higher prevalent than in the general population, which can potentially contribute to the higher risk of development of perioperative complications.