Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Cardiol ; 116(4): 642-6, 2015 Aug 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26092272

ABSTRACT

Despite the equipoise regarding alcohol's cardiovascular effects and absence of relevant rigorous controlled trials, the lay press frequently portrays alcohol as "heart healthy." The public perception of alcohol's heart effects, the sources of those perceptions, and how they may affect behavior are unknown. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data obtained from March 2013 to September 2014 from consecutive participants enrolled in the Health eHeart Study. Of 5,582 participants, 1,707 (30%) viewed alcohol as heart healthy, 2,157 (39%) viewed it as unhealthy, and 1,718 (31%) were unsure. Of those reporting alcohol as heart healthy, 80% cited lay press as a source of their knowledge. After adjustment, older age (odds ratio 1.11), higher education (odds ratio 1.37), higher income (odds ratio 1.07), US residence (odds ratio 1.63), and coronary artery disease (odds ratio 1.51) were associated with perception of alcohol as heart healthy (all p <0.003). Ever smokers (odds ratio 0.76, p = 0.004) and those with heart failure (odds ratio 0.5, p = 0.01) were less likely to cite alcohol as heart healthy. Those perceiving alcohol as heart healthy consumed on average 47% more alcohol on a regular basis (95% confidence interval 27% to 66%, p <0.001). In conclusion, of >5,000 consecutive Health eHeart participants, approximately 1/3 believed alcohol to be heart healthy, and the majority cited the lay press as the origin of that perception. Those with a perception of alcohol as heart healthy drink substantially more alcohol.


Subject(s)
Alcohol Drinking , Alcoholic Beverages , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Cohort Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Status , Humans , Internet , Male , Middle Aged , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , United States
2.
JAMA Intern Med ; 175(8): 1342-50, 2015 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26098676

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Interrogations and autopsies of sudden deaths with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are rarely performed. Therefore, causes of sudden deaths with these devices and the incidence of device failure are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine causes of death in individuals with CIEDs in a prospective autopsy study of all sudden deaths over 35 months as part of the San Francisco, California, Postmortem Systematic Investigation of Sudden Cardiac Death (POST SCD) study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Full autopsy, toxicology, histology, and device interrogation were performed on incident sudden cardiac deaths with pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). The setting was the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, City and County of San Francisco. Participants included all sudden deaths captured through active surveillance of all deaths reported to the medical examiner and San Francisco residents with an ICD (January 1, 2011, to November 30, 2013). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Identification of a device concern in sudden deaths with CIEDs, including hardware failures, device algorithm issues, device programming issues, and improper device selection. For the ICD population, outcomes were the cumulative incidence of death and sudden cardiac death and the proportion of deaths with an ICD concern. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 517 sudden deaths (4.3%) had CIEDs, and autopsy revealed a noncardiac cause of death in 6. Six of 14 pacemaker sudden deaths and 7 of 8 ICD sudden deaths died of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. Device concerns were identified in half (4 pacemakers and 7 ICDs), including 3 hardware failures contributing directly to death (1 rapid battery depletion with a sudden drop in pacing output and 2 lead fractures), 5 ICDs with ventricular fibrillation undersensing, 1 ICD with ventricular tachycardia missed due to programming, 1 improper device selection, and a pacemaker-dependent patient with pneumonia and concern about lead fracture. Of 712 San Francisco residents with an ICD during the study period, 109 died (15.3% cumulative 35-month incidence of death), and the 7 ICD concerns represent 6.4% of all ICD deaths. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Systematic interrogation and autopsy of sudden deaths in one city identified concerns about CIED function that might otherwise not have been observed. Current passive surveillance efforts may underestimate device malfunction. These methods can provide unbiased data regarding causes of sudden death in individuals with CIEDs and improve surveillance for CIED problems.


Subject(s)
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Devices , Death, Sudden/etiology , Defibrillators, Implantable , Equipment Failure , Intracranial Hemorrhages/mortality , Pneumonia/mortality , Tachycardia, Ventricular/mortality , Ventricular Fibrillation/mortality , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Autopsy , Cause of Death , Death, Sudden, Cardiac , Female , Head Injuries, Closed/mortality , Hemorrhage/mortality , Humans , Lung Diseases/mortality , Male , Middle Aged , Pacemaker, Artificial , Prospective Studies , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL