RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The PULSE (PostUraL tachycardia Syndrome Exercise) study is a randomised controlled trial assessing the feasibility of conducting a multicentre RCT testing supervised exercise rehabilitation with behavioural and motivational support, compared to best-practice usual care, for people with Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS). The original trial protocol was published in BMC Pilot & Feasibility Studies (accessible at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-00702-1 ). The PULSE intervention consists of (1) individual assessment; (2) 12-week, twice-weekly, supervised exercise training; (3) behavioural and motivational support; and (4) guided lifestyle physical activity. The control intervention is best-practice usual care with a single 30-min, one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on safe and effective physical activity. Sixty-two people (aged 18-60 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of PoTS will be invited to enrol on a feasibility RCT with an embedded qualitative study. The primary outcome will be feasibility; process-related measures will include eligibility, recruitment, randomisation and withdrawal rates, along with indicators of exercise programme adherence and acceptability. Secondary physiological, clinical and health-related outcomes will be assessed. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, here we describe amendments to the trial protocol. METHODS: Restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic meant it was necessary to change the delivery of the PULSE and control interventions. These changes reflected the need to limit the risk of COVID-19 transmission in a clinical population, some of whom were at increased risk of contracting the virus and suffering serious illness. The major change was that the originally intended centre-based PULSE and control interventions would now be delivered remotely on-line. Subsequently, there were minor changes to the participant eligibility criteria. These decisions followed an on-line co-creation session with people affected by PoTS, and relevant public and professional stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: We present an update of the original trial protocol in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. No participants were recruited to the original protocol; thus, results will reflect the on-line delivery of the intervention. PULSE will be the first randomised trial to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive multi-centre RCT testing supervised on-line exercise rehabilitation with behavioural and motivational support, compared to best-practice usual care, for people with PoTS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45323485 registered on 7 April 2020.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are effective in achieving symptom-rhythm correlation. Data on the diagnostic yield of ILRs, on nurse-led syncope clinics, and on nurse-led ILR implants are limited. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of our nurse-led syncope clinic and nurse-led ILR implants. METHODS: A retrospective study of all consecutive patients undergoing nurse-led ILR implantations was performed between April 2016 and April 2018. Patients were referred from both nurse-led and physician-led clinics. Data were collected on baseline demographic characteristics, referral source, symptom-rhythm correlation, ILR findings, and subsequent changes to management. All ILRs were enrolled into remote monitoring with automatic arrhythmia detection, and all immediate (≤24 hours) ILR implant complications were recorded. Comparisons were made between nurse-led and physician-led clinics and subsequent outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 432 patients with an ILR were identified: 164 (38%) from nurse-led and 268 (62%) from physician-led clinics; 200 (46%) were women (mean age 66.5 ± 18.2 years; mean follow-up duration 28.9 ± 9.5 months). Primary ILR indications were syncope (n = 251 [58%]), presyncope (n = 33 [7%]), palpitation (n = 39 [9%]), cryptogenic stroke (n = 78 [18%]), and other reasons (n = 31 [7%]). No immediate ILR implant complications occurred. Overall, 156 patients (36%) had a change in management as a direct result of ILR findings, with no overall differences between nurse-led and physician-led clinics (35% vs 36%; P = .7). More patients had newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in physician-led clinics (15% vs 7%; P = .01), and more patients had pacemaker implants for bradycardia in nurse-led clinics (23% vs 13%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Nurse-led ILR implantation was safe and effective. Nurse-led syncope clinics achieved good symptom-rhythm correlation with resultant significant changes to management in comparison to physician-led clinics. Larger prospective studies are needed to evaluate their longer-term impact.