Multifactorial assessment and targeted intervention for preventing falls and injuries among older people in community and emergency care settings: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of multifactorial assessment and intervention programmes to prevent falls and injuries among older adults recruited to trials in primary care, community, or emergency care settings. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index) to 22 March 2007, reference lists of included studies, and previous reviews. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible studies were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that evaluated interventions to prevent falls that were based in emergency departments, primary care, or the community that assessed multiple risk factors for falling and provided or arranged for treatments to address these risk factors. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes were number of fallers, fall related injuries, fall rate, death, admission to hospital, contacts with health services, move to institutional care, physical activity, and quality of life. Methodological quality assessment included allocation concealment, blinding, losses and exclusions, intention to treat analysis, and reliability of outcome measurement. RESULTS: 19 studies, of variable methodological quality, were included. The combined risk ratio for the number of fallers during follow-up among 18 trials was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.02) and for fall related injuries (eight trials) was 0.90 (0.68 to 1.20). No differences were found in admissions to hospital, emergency department attendance, death, or move to institutional care. Subgroup analyses found no evidence of different effects between interventions in different locations, populations selected for high risk of falls or unselected, and multidisciplinary teams including a doctor, but interventions that actively provide treatments may be more effective than those that provide only knowledge and referral. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence that multifactorial fall prevention programmes in primary care, community, or emergency care settings are effective in reducing the number of fallers or fall related injuries is limited. Data were insufficient to assess fall and injury rates.

NASPE expert consensus document: use of i.v. (conscious) sedation/analgesia by nonanesthesia personnel in patients undergoing arrhythmia specific diagnostic, therapeutic, and surgical procedures.

Use of IV (Conscious) Sedation/Analgesia by Nonanesthesia Personnel in Patients Undergoing Arrhythmia Specific Diagnostic, Therapeutic, and Surgical Procedures. This article is intended to inform practitioners, payers, and other interested parties of the opinion of the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology (NASPE) concerning evolving areas of clinical practice or technologies or both, that are widely available or are new to the practice community. Expert consensus documents are so designated because the evidence base and experience with the technology or clinical practice are not yet sufficiently well developed, or rigorously controlled trials are not yet available that would support a more definitive statement. This article has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, October 1997.

Influence of left ventricular function on outcome of patients treated with implantable defibrillators.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of patients treated with implantable defibrillators were compared between patients with left ventricular ejection fraction greater than or equal to 30% and less than 30%. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 68 consecutive patients treated with implantable defibrillators, 40 patients (group 1) had left ventricular ejection fraction greater than or equal to 30%, and 28 patients (group 2) had left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%. Sudden death, surgical mortality, nonsudden arrhythmia-related death (death within 24 hours after an arrhythmic event despite initial termination of the arrhythmia by the implantable defibrillator), total arrhythmia-related death (including sudden death, surgical death, and nonsudden arrhythmia-related death), and total cardiac death were compared between the two groups. Surgical mortality was 4.4% (0% in group 1, 11% in group 2). During the follow-up of 31 +/- 27 months, actuarial survival rates free of events were 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 96%, 91%, and 82% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for sudden death (p = NS); 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 85%, 81%, and 72% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for sudden death and surgical mortality (p less than 0.05); 97%, 97%, and 97% in group 1 and 82%, 78%, and 70% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for total arrhythmia-related death (p less than 0.05); and 95%, 95%, and 95% in group 1 and 82%, 69%, and 57% in group 2 at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively, for total cardiac death (p less than 0.05). Four (57%) of seven nonsudden cardiac deaths during the initial 36-month follow-up period were causally related to arrhythmia (three surgical deaths and one arrhythmia-related nonsudden death). CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of patients treated with implantable defibrillators is strongly influenced by the degree of left ventricular dysfunction. In group 1 patients, surgical mortality, sudden death, and total cardiac death are rare. In group 2, sudden death rate may not be markedly different from that of group 1 patients. However, the risk of therapy (surgical mortality) is high. Many nonsudden cardiac deaths are causally related to arrhythmia (surgical mortality or nonsudden arrhythmia-related death). Therefore, the survival rate free of total arrhythmia-related death is significantly lower in group 2 (70% versus 97% in group 1 at 3 years). Further studies are needed to determine the roles of defibrillator therapy and other therapies in various clinical settings.

Direct current shock ablation: quantitative assessment of proarrhythmic effects.

Catheter ablation using direct current (DC) shock has proved invaluable in the management of a variety of tachycardias. However, sporadic reports of fatal arrhythmias following ablation have raised the question of the proarrhythmic potential of DC shock ablation. The present study was undertaken in 45 patients to assess prospectively any proarrhythmia related to DC shock ablation, using matched pre- and postablation Holter monitors and programmed electrical stimulation (PES). Nineteen of these patients had Holter monitors for three successive postablation days to observe trends. There was unmatched data in 11 additional patients. All 56 patients provided prospective follow-up for clinical events. There was no immediate sustained VT/VF at the time of the ablation. Four patients had sustained VT in the first 72 hours after ablation; three episodes were similar to the preablation clinical arrhythmias; one patient had torsades de pointes interrupting bradycardia. Twelve patients met Holter, PES, or clinical criteria for proarrhythmia; none were treated on the basis of these findings. On Holter monitoring, there were significant increases in VPCs/hour and couplets/hour in patients undergoing atrial or atrioventricular junctional ablations; and an increase in couplets after accessory pathway ablations. Increases in these categories were not significant for VT patients; nor were increases in episodes of VT/hour or atrial arrhythmias significant in any group. Patients were followed for 44 +/- 33 months, with an actuarial survival of 95% at 1 year, 88% at 3 years, and 85% at 4 years. There were six deaths during follow-up. Two patients had sudden death: one at 2 months had early evidence of proarrhythmia; the other at 32 months may have represented later myocardia deterioration. One patient died of heart failure at 77 months; and there were three noncardiac deaths. DC shock ablation in humans is much less proarrhythmic than in dogs. The low incidence of clinical proarrhythmic events during prolonged follow-up after discharge resulted in low sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values for Holter and PES, although the negative predictive values of these tests were greater than 90%. Only one of 12 patients who met criteria for proarrhythmia in the days immediately following ablation had subsequent clinical events consistent with proarrhythmia. These results may be useful as standards for comparison with results of radiofrequency or other ablation modalities.

Comparison of ramp and stepwise incremental pacing in assessment of antegrade and retrograde conduction.

Conventional assessment of antegrade (AV) and retrograde (VA) conduction involves stepwise increments in pacing rates until block in conduction is observed. This study was designed to establish the comparative characteristics of ramp pacing, in which the rate is continuously and smoothly incremented until block occurs. Two hundred and ten patients participated in portions of this study. Stepwise pacing was performed in 10 beat/minute steps, with the rate held for at least 15 seconds at each step; if marked prolongation or variability in conduction was observed, the rate was held constant for up to 60 seconds to allow for accommodation. With ramp pacing, the rate was gradually increased at a steady 2-4 beats/minute/second. Whenever possible, both stepwise and ramp pacing were performed for assessment of both antegrade and retrograde conduction. All patients had conducted sinus rhythm as their baseline mechanism. Antegrade conduction was similar using incremental stepwise and ramp pacing. The AH interval at a cycle length (CL) of 500 ms, the maximum AH increment, the cycle length at AV block were all remarkably similar (p = NS). Assessment of retrograde conduction produced similar results, with insignificant differences between maximum conducted VA intervals, and cycle length at VA block using the two pacing techniques. Ramp pacing provides a useful and rapid alternative to conventional stepwise incremental pacing in the assessment of antegrade and retrograde conduction in patients using both normal and accessory pathways. Ramp pacing was better tolerated, and some correlations between antegrade and retrograde conduction were stronger with the ramp pacing technique.