Applicability of a Novel Formula (Bogossian formula) for Evaluation of the QT-Interval in Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block Due to Right Ventricular Pacing.

BACKGROUND: The presence of left bundle branch block (LBBB) due to right ventricular pacing represents a particular challenge in properly measuring the QTc interval. In 2014, a new formula for the evaluation of QT interval in patients with LBBB was reported. METHODS: 145 patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator were included in this prospective multicenter observational study. Inclusion criteria were: no permanent right ventricular stimulation, an intrinsic QRS interval of <120 ms, and reduced left ventricular function. 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings during intrinsic rhythm and during right ventricular threshold testing were performed. After LBBB correction using the reported Bogossian formula, the QTc interval was evaluated with Bazett's formula. The corrected QTc interval was compared in each patient with the QTc interval during intrinsic rhythm. All measurements were performed by an experienced electrophysiologist and a trainee who worked independently and in a blinded manner. RESULTS: 74 patients (65 ± 13 years; male n = 42) with apical and 71 patients (68 ± 11 years; male n = 42) with nonapical right ventricular pacing were included in this study. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 40 ± 13%. The QTc interval was determined to be 461 ± 34 ms (modified by Bogossian's formula) in paced and 436 ± 34 ms in intrinsic rhythm. The QTc interval was overestimated by ΔQTc of 25 ± 21 ms (mean deviation 5.7%) when using the Bogossian formula. CONCLUSION: The novel Bogossian formula seems to be a reliable tool for QTc interval evaluation in patients with heart failure and right ventricular pacing. However, a slight overestimation of the QT-interval must be respected.

Comparison of Exo-Seal(®) and Angio-Seal (®) for arterial puncture site closure: A randomized, multicenter, single-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of extravascular femoral closure devices in patients undergoing coronary angiography/intervention has not been sufficiently evaluated. We sought to define the impact of an extravascular polyglycolic acid (PGA) plug for the closure of a femoral access site in patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: In this prospective, single-blind, multicenter trial we randomly assigned 319 patients to vessel closure with Angio-Seal(®) or Exo-Seal(®). We hypothesized that the use of an extravascular closure device is not inferior to an anchor/plug-mediated device regarding the occurrence of the composite primary endpoint: hematoma > 5 cm, significant groin bleeding (TIMI major bleed), false aneurysm, and device failure. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in patient baseline characteristics or procedural results. After 24 h the primary endpoint occurred in nine patients (5.6 %) in the Angio-Seal(®) group and in 13 patients (8.2 %) inthe Exo-Seal(®) group (p = 0.38). Hematoma > 5 cm was noted in three patients (1.9 %) receiving Angio-Seal(®) vs. two patients (1.3 %) receiving Exo-Seal(®) (p = 0.99). In one patient (0.6 %) of the Exo-Seal(®) group, TIMI major bleeding occurred, requiring transfusion (p = 0.49). There were four (2.5 %) false aneurysms found in patients treated with Angio-Seal(®) and two (1.3 %) in patients treated with Exo-Seal(®) (p = 0.68). There was a trend for a higher incidence of device failure in the Exo-Seal(®) group (1.2 vs. 5.2 %, p = 0.06). At telephone interview after 30 days, there was no significant difference found regarding the events readmission with surgery of puncture site, infection, bleeding, hematoma, or pain. CONCLUSION: In the present study, there were no significant differences found regarding the occurrence of hematoma > 5 cm, major bleeding, false aneurysm, and device failure between Angio-Seal(®) and Exo-Seal(®) 24 h after device implantation.

Tilt testing and what you should know about it - Experience with 835 consecutive patients with syncope of unknown origin.

BACKGROUND: Numerous tilt testing protocols with and without a preceding passive phase or the administration of nitrates have already been investigated. However, a truely standardized method for the investigation does not yet exist. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 835 consecutive patients who underwent tilt testing between January 2005 and March 2015 were included in this study. Results of a passive tilt test (PTT), a nitrate-stimulated tilt test (NSTT) with a preceding passive phase of 20 min, or an early nitrate-stimulated tilt test (ENSTT) without a preceding passive phase were compared and analyzed retrospectively in 735 patients. In addition, a further 100 consecutive patients were prospectively randomized 1:1 to compare NSTT and ENSTT. In the retrospective analysis, 38% of the patients in the ENSTT group had a positive test response compared with 45% in the NSTT group and only 27% in the PTT group (p = 0.0002). In the prospective study, 34% of the patients had a positive test response in the ENSTT group compared with 42% in the NSTT group (p = 0.537). The mean duration to a positive test response was significantly shorter in the ENSTT group (retrospective and prospective p < 0.001). The nitrate-stimulated groups did not differ significantly with respect to the hemodynamic characteristics of a positive test response (retrospective: p = 0.773; prospective: p = 0.086). CONCLUSION: Due to the rate of positive test response being comparable to other protocols and its significantly shorter test duration, nitrate-stimulated tilt testing without a preceding passive tilt test may be favored for use in a busy clinical practice.

Rescue baroreflex activation therapy after Stanford B aortic dissection due to therapy-refractory hypertension.

Clinical trials have demonstrated significant and durable reduction in arterial pressure from baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) in patients with resistant arterial hypertension. There is a lack of data, however, concerning the use of BAT in a rescue approach during therapy-refractory hypertensive crisis resulting in life-threatening end-organ damage. Here, we describe the first case in which BAT was applied as a rescue procedure in an intensive care setting after ineffective maximum medical treatment. A 34-year-old male patient presented with Stanford B aortic dissection and hypertensive crisis. The dissection membrane extended from the left subclavian artery down to the right common iliac artery, resulting in a total arterial occlusion of the right leg. After emergency thoracic endovascular aortic repair and femorofemoral crossover bypass, the patient developed a compartment syndrome of the right lower limb, ultimately leading to amputation of the right leg above the knee. Even under deep sedation recurrent hypertensive crises of up to 220 mm Hg occurred that could not be controlled by eight antihypertensive drugs of different classes. Screening for secondary hypertension was negative. Eventually, rescue implantation of right-sided BAT was performed as a bailout procedure, followed by immediate activation of the device. After a hospital stay of a total of 8 weeks, the patient was discharged 2 weeks after BAT initiation with satisfactory blood pressure levels. After 1-year follow-up, the patient has not had a hypertensive crisis since the onset of BAT and is currently on fourfold oral antihypertensive therapy. The previously described bailout procedures for the treatment of life-threatening hypertensive conditions that are refractory to drug treatment have mainly comprised the interventional denervation of renal arteries. The utilization of BAT is new in this emergency context and showed a significant, immediate, and sustained reduction of blood pressure levels after activation. To our knowledge, we report the first case of an immediate activation of a barostim while the device is usually not activated before 2 to 4 weeks after implantation to allow time for the surgical site to heal. During the follow-up period, the healing process was not impaired, and a significant, immediate, and sustained reduction of blood pressure levels after activation could be observed. This treatment option offers maximum adherence to antihypertensive therapy to avoid future cardiovascular end-organ damage and possibly reduce antihypertensive medication and undesirable side effects.