Smoking status and mortality outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of smoking on short (30-day) and intermediate (30-day to 6-month) mortality following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND: The effect of smoking on mortality post-PCI is lacking in the modern PCI era. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data comparing short- and intermediate-term mortality amongst smokers, ex-smokers and non-smokers. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 12,656 patients: never-smokers (n = 4288), ex-smokers (n = 4806) and current smokers (n = 3562). The mean age (±standard deviation) was 57 (±11) years in current smokers compared with 67 (±11) in ex-smokers and 67 (±12) in never-smokers; p < 0.0001. PCI was performed for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in 84.1% of current smokers, 57% of ex-smokers and 62.9% in never-smokers; p < 0.0001. In a logistic regression model, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals (CIs)) for 30-day mortality were 1.60 (1.10-2.32) in current smokers and 0.98 (0.70-1.38) in ex-smokers compared with never-smokers. In the Cox proportional hazard model, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for mortality between 30 days and 6 months were 1.03 (0.65-1.65) in current smokers and 1.19 (0.84-1.67) in ex-smokers compared with never-smokers. CONCLUSION: This large observational study of non-selected patients demonstrates that ex-smokers and never-smokers are of similar age at first presentation to PCI, and there is no short- or intermediate-term mortality difference between them following PCI. Current smokers undergo PCI at a younger age, more often for ACS, and have higher short-term mortality. These findings underscore the public message on the benefits of smoking cessation and the harmful effects of smoking.

Right ventricular septal pacing as alternative for failed left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates.

AIMS: To compare the effects on left ventricular (LV) function of right ventricular (RV) septal pacing vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with an indication for the latter. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an effective therapy in patients with drug-refractory heart failure. Despite advances in implantation techniques, LV lead placement can be impossible in up to 10% of cases. We, therefore, assessed the effects of RV septal pacing from mid septum (RVmIVS) and outflow tract (RVOT) on cardiac performance, in comparison with CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two patients scheduled for CRT underwent dual-chamber temporary pacing. The ventricular lead was placed at the RV apex (RVA), RVmIVS, and RVOT in random order. Comprehensive echocardiography was performed in a baseline AAI mode and then at each RV position in dual chamber pacemaker function (D pacing, D sensing, D dual responses) mode and repeated on the next day following CRT implantation. Right ventricular apex pacing did not change any of the assessed echocardiography parameters. Both RVmIVS and RVOT pacing increased LV ejection fraction (EF): 29 ± 7% at baseline vs. 32 ± 6% (P = 0.02) and 32 ± 5% (P = 0.04) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Similarly, the dyssynchrony index (Ts-SD) decreased: 50 ± 19 ms at baseline vs. 39 ± 17 ms (P = 0.04) and 37 ± 17 ms (P = 0.006) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Cardiac resynchronization therapy further improved LVEF and Ts-SD to 36 ± 7% and 34 ± 15 ms, respectively, however, only LVEF was significantly higher compared with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01 respectively). There were no significant differences in either LVEF or Ts-SD between RVmIVS and RVOT. CONCLUSION: Right ventricular septal pacing from mid septum or RVOT pacing improves LVEF and LV synchrony in CRT candidates. Further improvement in LVEF was achieved by CRT, which remains the 'gold standard' therapy in these patients. However, RV septal pacing is worthy of further study as an alternative strategy when LV lead implantation fails.

Adverse psychological effects and costs associated with waiting for radiofrequency ablation.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is undertaken as a potentially curative treatment for a variety of heart rhythm disturbances. Previous studies have demonstrated improved quality of life and reduced symptoms after ablation. In many health care environments waiting lists exist for scheduling of procedures. However, the psychological effects of waiting for radiofrequency ablation have not previously been assessed. We hypothesized that waiting for this intervention may be associated with increased psychological morbidity and health care costs. METHODS: Ninety-two patients scheduled for elective RFA completed repeated questionnaires comprising the Medical Outcomes Short Form 36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and an in-house questionnaire designed to assess the burden of symptoms related to arrhythmia (arrhythmia-related burden score). Mean scores were generated and compared at time points while waiting, before and after the procedure. Regression analyses were carried out to identify predictors of increased psychological morbidity while waiting and immediately prior to the procedure. Health care costs during the waiting period as a consequence of arrhythmia were quantified. RESULTS: Mean scores for parameters of psychological morbidity worsened during the period of waiting and improved after the procedure. Predictors of adverse effects within the cohort varied according to the time point assessed for each of the measures of psychological morbidity. A conservative estimate of the health care cost incurred while waiting exceeds £ 181 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Waiting for radiofrequency ablation appears to be associated with adverse psychological effects and health care costs. These results may support strategies to reduce waiting times and prioritize resource allocation.

Cardiac sarcoid or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: a role for positron emission tomography (PET)?

We present a case of cardiac sarcoidosis of insidious onset mimicking arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Our patient initially presented with systemic sarcoidosis but later developed palpitations. The similarity in clinical presentation and cardiac magnetic resonance findings in both conditions posed a challenge in differentiating between the two in the absence of histological diagnosis. We highlighted the role of positron emission tomography in aiding a diagnosis.