Arrhythmia monitoring and outcome after myocardial infarction (BIO|GUARD-MI): a randomized trial.

Objectives: Cardiac arrhythmias predict poor outcome after myocardial infarction (MI). We studied if arrhythmia monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) can improve treatment and outcome. Design: BIO|GUARD-MI was a randomized, international open-label study with blinded outcome assessment. Setting: Tertiary care facilities monitored the arrhythmias, while the follow-up remained with primary care physicians. Participants: Patients after ST-elevation (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation MI with an ejection fraction >35% and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥4 (men) or ≥5 (women). Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive or not receive an ICM in addition to standard post-MI treatment. Device-detected arrhythmias triggered immediate guideline recommended therapy changes via remote monitoring. Main outcome measures: MACE, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death or acute unscheduled hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Results: 790 patients (mean age 71 years, 72% male, 51% non-STEMI) of planned 1,400 pts were enrolled and followed for a median of 31.6 months. At 2 years, 39.4% of the device group and 6.7% of the control group had their therapy adapted for an arrhythmia [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.9, P < 0.0001]. Most frequent arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation, pauses and bradycardia. The use of an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort (HR = 0.84, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.10; P = 0.21). In secondary analysis, a statistically significant interaction of the type of infarction suggests a benefit in the pre-specified non-STEMI subgroup. Risk factor analysis indicates that this may be connected to the higher incidence of MACE in patients with non-STEMI. Conclusions: The burden of asymptomatic but actionable arrhythmias is large in post-infarction patients. However, arrhythmia monitoring with an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort. Post-hoc analysis suggests that it may be beneficial in non-STEMI patients or other high-risk subgroups. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02341534], NCT02341534.

Anterior-Lateral Versus Anterior-Posterior Electrode Position for Cardioverting Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Smaller randomized studies have reported conflicting results regarding the optimal electrode position for cardioverting atrial fibrillation. However, anterior-posterior electrode positioning is widely used as a standard and believed to be superior to anterior-lateral electrode positioning. Therefore, we aimed to compare anterior-lateral and anterior-posterior electrode positioning for cardioverting atrial fibrillation in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: In this multicenter, investigator-initiated, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with atrial fibrillation scheduled for elective cardioversion to either anterior-lateral or anterior-posterior electrode positioning. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after the first shock. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients in sinus rhythm after up to 4 shocks escalating to maximum energy. Safety outcomes were any cases of arrhythmia during or after cardioversion, skin redness, and patient-reported periprocedural pain. RESULTS: We randomized 468 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 126 patients (54%) assigned to the anterior-lateral electrode position and in 77 patients (33%) assigned to the anterior-posterior electrode position (risk difference, 22 percentage points [95% CI, 13-30]; P<0.001). The number of patients in sinus rhythm after the final cardioversion shock was 216 (93%) assigned to anterior-lateral electrode positioning and 200 (85%) assigned to anterior-posterior electrode positioning (risk difference, 7 percentage points [95% CI, 2-12]). There were no significant differences between groups in any safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior-lateral electrode positioning was more effective than anterior-posterior electrode positioning for biphasic cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. There were no significant differences in any safety outcome. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03817372.

[Dizziness in patients with heart disease]. / Svimmelhed hos den kardiologiske patient.

In patients with heart disease, dizziness is primarily associated with syncope or pre-syncope and mandates further investigation to obtain a specific diagnosis, estimation of risk of sudden death and treatment options. After a focused history and physical examination, the cause of the problem may be determined in more than half of the patients. The reflex syncope is by far the most common form and may usually be handled by reassurance of the benign nature of the problem. Patients with syncope caused by brachy- or tachy-arrhythmia or structural or ischaemic heart disease should be referred to a cardiological department for specific diagnosis and treatment.

Routine transradial coronary angiography in unselected patients.

OBJECTIVES: To measure and compare the results of changing from routine transfemoral to routine transradial coronary angiography performed by a single operator. DESIGN: A learning period of 3 months for the transradial procedure with 43 selected patients was followed by a 12-month routine period with 243 unselected patients. The success and complication rates, contrast volumes, catheter and X-ray times were measured and compared to results of a preceding period where the transfemoral approach was used. Follow-up was performed in the transradial groups 1.5-25 months after the procedure. RESULTS: Of the non-selected patients, 9% were deemed unsuitable for the radial procedure. In the remaining 91% in which the transradial route was attempted, success was achieved in 91%. The complication rate was 2.7%. Increased operator experience reduces catheter and fluoroscopy times. At follow-up, 4.7% of the radial arteries were occluded, but the patients were without clinical sequelae. The occlusion rate was significantly higher with an unsuccessful procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Transradial coronary angiography can be performed safely and with acceptable image quality in non-selected patients after a learning period of 43 cases. Total procedure time is shorter than with the transfemoral approach. There were no bleeding complications and no procedure-related complications that required treatment.

Sinus and paced P wave duration and dispersion as predictors of atrial fibrillation after pacemaker implantation in patients with isolated sick sinus syndrome.

The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the sinus and the paced P wave duration and dispersion as predictors of AF after pacemaker implantation in patients with isolated sick sinus syndrome (SSS). The study included 109 (69 women, mean age 72 +/- 11 years) patients with SSS, 59 with bradycardia-tachycardia syndrome (BTS). A 12-lead ECG was recorded before pacemaker implantation and during high right atrial and septal right atrial pacing at 70 and 100 beats/min. The ECGs were scanned into a computer and analyzed on screen. The patients were treated with AAIR (n = 52) or DDDR pacing. The P wave duration was measured in each lead and mean P wave duration and P wave dispersion were calculated for each ECG. AF during follow-up was defined as: AF in an ECG at or between follow-up visits; an atrial high rate episode with a rate of > or =220 beats/min for > or =5 minutes, atrial sensing with a rate of > or =170 beats/min in > or =5% of total counted beats, mode-switching in >/=5% of total time recorded, or a mode switching episode of > or =5 minutes recorded by the pacemaker telemetry. The ECG parameters were correlated to AF during follow-up. Mean follow-up was 1.5 +/- 0.9 years. None of the ECG parameters differed between patients with AF and patients without AF during follow-up, nor was there any difference between groups after correction for BTS and age. BTS was the strongest predictor of AF during follow-up (P < 0.001). P wave duration and dispersion measured before and during pacemaker implantation were not predictive of AF after pacemaker implantation in patients with isolated SSS.