Multiple procedure outcomes for nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation: Left atrial posterior wall isolation versus stepwise ablation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare multiple-procedure catheter ablation outcomes of a stepwise approach versus left atrial posterior wall isolation (LA PWI) in patients undergoing nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF) ablation. BACKGROUND: Unfavorable outcomes for stepwise ablation of NPAF in large clinical trials may be attributable to proarrhythmic effects of incomplete ablation lines. It is unknown if a more extensive initial ablation strategy results in improved outcomes following multiple ablation procedures. METHODS: Two hundred twenty two consecutive patients with NPAF underwent first-time ablation using a contact-force sensing ablation catheter utilizing either a stepwise (Group 1, n = 111) or LA PWI (Group 2, n = 111) approach. The duration of follow-up was 36 months. The primary endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia >30 s. Secondary endpoints were freedom from persistent arrhythmia, repeat ablation, and recurrent arrhythmia after repeat ablation. RESULTS: There was similar freedom from atrial arrhythmias after index ablation for both stepwise and LA PWI groups at 36 months (60% vs. 69%, p = .1). The stepwise group was more likely to present with persistent recurrent arrhythmia (29% vs. 14%, p = .005) and more likely to undergo second catheter ablation (32% vs. 12%, p < .001) compared to LA PWI patients. Recurrent arrhythmia after repeat ablation was more likely in the stepwise group compared to the LA PWI group (15% vs. 4%, p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to a stepwise approach, LA PWI for patients with NPAF resulted in a similar incidence of any atrial arrhythmia, lower incidence of persistent arrhythmia, and fewer repeat ablations. Results for repeat ablation were not improved with a more extensive initial approach.

Implementing a medical student interpreter training program as a strategy to developing humanism.

BACKGROUND: Humanistic care in medicine has shown to improve healthcare outcomes. Language barriers are a significant obstacle to humanistic care, and trained medical interpreters have demonstrated to effectively bridge the gap for the vulnerable limited English proficiency (LEP) patient population. One way in which medical schools can train more humanistic physicians and provide language access is through the implementation of programs to train bilingual medical students as medical interpreters. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate whether such training had an impact on bilingual medical student's interpretation skills and humanistic traits. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, whole-day (~ 8 h) workshops on medical interpretation were offered periodically to 80 bilingual medical students at the Penn State College of Medicine. Students completed a series of questionnaires before and after the training that assessed the program's effectiveness and its overall impact on interpretation skills and humanistic traits. Students also had the opportunity to become certified medical interpreters. RESULTS: The 80 student participants were first- to third- year medical students representing 21 languages. Following training, most students felt more confident interpreting (98%) and more empathetic towards LEP patients (87.5%). Students' scores in the multiple-choice questions about medical interpretation/role of the interpreter were also significantly improved (Chi-Square test, p < 0.05). All students who decided to take the exam were able to successfully become certified interpreters. Ninety-two percent of participants reported they would recommend the program and would be willing to serve as a future "coaches" for interpreter training workshops delivered to peer students. CONCLUSIONS: Our program was successful in increasing self-reported measures of empathy and humanism in medical students. Our data suggests that implementation of medical interpreter training programs can be a successful strategy to develop of humanism in medical students, and aid in the development of sustainable language access for LEP patients.

Esmolol infusion versus propranolol infusion: effects on heart rate and blood pressure in healthy volunteers.

Despite its widespread clinical use, the ß1-adrenergic receptor antagonist esmolol hydrochloride is not commonly used in human physiology research, and the effective dose of esmolol (compared with the nonselective ß-blocker propranolol) is unclear. In four separate studies we used cycle ergometry exercise and infusions of isoproterenol and epinephrine to test the heart rate (HR)-lowering effect of esmolol compared with propranolol and saline in healthy humans. In cohort 1, both esmolol (ΔHR 57 ± 6 beats/min) and propranolol (ΔHR 56 ± 7 beats/min) attenuated exercise tachycardia compared with saline (ΔHR 88 ± 17 beats/min). In cohort 2, we found that the HR response to exercise was similar at 5 min (ΔHR 57 ± 9 beats/min) and 60 min (ΔHR 55 ± 9 beats/min) after initiation of the esmolol maintenance infusion. In cohort 3, we confirmed that the HR-lowering effect of esmolol disappeared 45 min after termination of the maintenance infusion. In cohort 4, changes in femoral blood flow and hematological parameters in response to epinephrine infusion were not different between esmolol and saline infusion, indicating that our esmolol infusion paradigm does not block ß2-receptors. Collectively, our data indicate that infusion of ~160 mg of esmolol (range 110-200 mg in the 5 min before exercise) acutely and selectively blocks ß1-receptors in healthy humans. Additionally, ß1-receptors remain blocked 60 min later if a maintenance infusion of ~0.2 mg·kg total body mass-1·min-1 continues. The current data lay the foundation for future studies to evaluate ß1- vs. ß2-receptor control of the circulation in humans.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We used cycle ergometry exercise and infusions of isoproterenol and epinephrine to test the heart rate-lowering effect of esmolol compared with propranolol and saline in healthy humans. Collectively, our data indicate that infusion of ~160 mg of esmolol (range 110-200 mg in the 5 min before exercise) acutely and selectively blocks ß1-adrenergic receptors. These infusion parameters can be used in future experiments to evaluate ß1- vs. ß2-receptor control of the circulation in humans.

Effect of adrenergic agonists on coronary blood flow: a laboratory study in healthy volunteers.

Myocardial oxygen supply and demand mismatch is fundamental to the pathophysiology of ischemia and infarction. The sympathetic nervous system, through α-adrenergic receptors and ß-adrenergic receptors, influences both myocardial oxygen supply and demand. In animal models, mechanistic studies have established that adrenergic receptors contribute to coronary vascular tone. The purpose of this laboratory study was to noninvasively quantify coronary responses to adrenergic receptor stimulation in humans. Fourteen healthy volunteers (11 men and 3 women) performed isometric handgrip exercise to fatigue followed by intravenous infusion of isoproterenol. A subset of individuals also received infusions of phenylephrine (n = 6), terbutaline (n = 10), and epinephrine (n = 4); all dosages were based on fat-free mass and were infused slowly to achieve steady-state. The left anterior descending coronary artery was visualized using Doppler echocardiography. Beat-by-beat heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), peak diastolic coronary velocity (CBVpeak), and coronary velocity time integral were calculated. Data are presented as M ± SD Isometric handgrip elicited significant increases in BP, HR, and CBVpeak (from 23.3 ± 5.3 to 34.5 ± 9.9 cm/sec). Isoproterenol raised HR and CBVpeak (from 22.6 ± 4.8 to 43.9 ± 12.4 cm/sec). Terbutaline and epinephrine evoked coronary hyperemia whereas phenylephrine did not significantly alter CBVpeak. Different indices of coronary hyperemia (changes in CBVpeak and velocity time integral) were significantly correlated (R = 0.803). The current data indicate that coronary hyperemia occurs in healthy humans in response to isometric handgrip exercise and low-dose, steady-state infusions of isoproterenol, terbutaline, and epinephrine. The contribution of ß1 versus ß2 receptors to coronary hyperemia remains to be determined. In this echocardiographic study, we demonstrate that coronary blood flow increases when ß-adrenergic receptors are stimulated (i.e., during exercise and different intravenous infusions). Our infusion paradigms and beat-by-beat imaging methodologies can be used in future studies to evaluate age-, sex-, and disease- differences in adrenergic control of coronary blood flow.