RESUMO
AIMS: Subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased risk of progression to clinical AF, stroke, and cardiovascular death. We hypothesized that in pacemaker patients requiring dual-chamber rate-adaptive (DDDR) pacing, closed loop stimulation (CLS) integrated into the circulatory control system through intra-cardiac impedance monitoring would reduce the occurrence of atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) compared with conventional DDDR pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with sinus node dysfunctions (SNDs) and an implanted pacemaker or defibrillator were randomly allocated to dual-chamber CLS (n = 612) or accelerometer-based DDDR pacing (n = 598) and followed for 3 years. The primary endpoint was time to the composite endpoint of the first AHRE lasting ≥6 min, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). All AHREs were independently adjudicated using intra-cardiac electrograms. The incidence of the primary endpoint was lower in the CLS arm (50.6%) than in the DDDR arm (55.7%), primarily due to the reduction in AHREs lasting between 6 h and 7 days. Unadjusted site-stratified hazard ratio (HR) for CLS vs. DDDR was 0.84 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-0.99; P = 0.035]. After adjusting for CHA2DS2-VASc score, the HR remained 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99; P = 0.033). In subgroup analyses of AHRE incidence, the incremental benefit of CLS was greatest in patients without atrioventricular block (HR, 0.77; P = 0.008) and in patients without AF history (HR, 0.73; P = 0.009). The contribution of stroke/TIA to the primary endpoint (1.3%) was low and not statistically different between study arms. CONCLUSION: Dual-chamber CLS in patients with SND is associated with a significantly lower AHRE incidence than conventional DDDR pacing.
Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial , Estimulação Cardíaca Artificial , Frequência Cardíaca , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório , Marca-Passo Artificial , Síndrome do Nó Sinusal , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Humanos , Feminino , Masculino , Fibrilação Atrial/fisiopatologia , Fibrilação Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilação Atrial/terapia , Fibrilação Atrial/epidemiologia , Idoso , Síndrome do Nó Sinusal/terapia , Síndrome do Nó Sinusal/fisiopatologia , Estimulação Cardíaca Artificial/métodos , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório/prevenção & controle , Ataque Isquêmico Transitório/epidemiologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/prevenção & controle , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Incidência , Resultado do Tratamento , Fatores de Tempo , Fatores de Risco , Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Técnicas Eletrofisiológicas Cardíacas , Acelerometria , Idoso de 80 Anos ou maisRESUMO
Active fixation for a lead in the coronary sinus may be essential to select the optimal left ventricular pacing site, maximize the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and avoid dislodgement. The Medtronic Attain Stability lead allows fixation through a side helix concentric with the lead body. Although electrical performance of such a lead is well known, evidence of extractability remains poor especially in the long term. We describe the removal of an Attain Stability lead 63 months after implantation which, to the best of our knowledge, is the longest implant duration that has ever been reported, in an 81-year-old male patient. It was successfully achieved using simple traction and rotation maneuvers, demonstrating the long-term removal feasibility of such device.
Assuntos
Terapia de Ressincronização Cardíaca , Seio Coronário , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Masculino , Humanos , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Seio Coronário/diagnóstico por imagem , Seio Coronário/cirurgia , Dispositivos de Terapia de Ressincronização Cardíaca , Remoção de Dispositivo , Ventrículos do Coração/cirurgia , Resultado do Tratamento , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapiaRESUMO
In humans, coronaviruses can cause infections of the respiratory system, with damage of varying severity depending on the virus examined: ranging from mild-to-moderate upper respiratory tract diseases, such as the common cold, pneumonia, severe acute respiratory syndrome, kidney failure, and even death. Human coronaviruses known to date, common throughout the world, are seven. The most common-and least harmful-ones were discovered in the 1960s and cause a common cold. Others, more dangerous, identified in the early 2000s and cause more severe respiratory tract infections. Among these the SARS-CoV, isolated in 2003 and responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome (the so-called SARS), which appeared in China in November 2002, the coronavirus 2012 (2012-nCoV) cause of the Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome (MERS) from coronavirus, which exploded in June 2012 in Saudi Arabia, and actually SARS-CoV-2. On December 31, 2019, a new coronavirus strain was reported in Wuhan, China, identified as a new coronavirus beta strain ß-CoV from group 2B, with a genetic similarity of approximately 70% to SARS-CoV, the virus responsible of SARS. In the first half of February, the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), in charge of the designation and naming of the viruses (i.e., species, genus, family, etc.), thus definitively named the new coronavirus as SARS-CoV-2. This article highlights the main knowledge we have about the biomolecular and pathophysiologic mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2.