Search

Aim: An implantable loop recorder (ILR) is indicated in patients with unexplained syncope after complete conventional work-up. Data from the literature imply that, in clinical practice, the ILR is underused. The aim of the study was to verify if there is any discrepancy between the use of ILRs in clinical practice and the potential indications based on the most potentially appropriate guideline indications.Method and Results: We compared the prevalence of ILRs actually implanted in patients with unexplained syncope in the Syncope Unit Project (SUP) study and the potential one using the standard given by the guidelines. In the SUP study, 28 (18%) out of 159 patients with unexplained syncope received an ILR. Appropriate criteria for implantation of ILRs according to guidelines were present in 110 (69%) patients. Moreover, 7 (25%) of ILRs actually implanted did not satisfy the guideline standards. During the follow-up, 32% of patients who had received an ILR had a diagnosis compared with 5% of those who did not (P= 0.001).Conclusions: The estimated indications were four times higher than those observed. Moreover, in about one quarter of the cases, the use of ILRs proved to be potentially inappropriate according to guideline indications. Two-thirds of patients with unexplained syncope had indications potentially appropriate for ILRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To compare the utility of the partners-heart failure (HF) algorithm with the care alert strategy for remote monitoring, in guiding clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF., Methods: Consecutive cardiac resynchronization-defibrillator recipients were followed with biweekly automatic transmissions. After every transmission, patients received a phone contact in order to check their health status, eventually followed by clinical actions, classified as "no-action", "non-active" and "active". Active clinical actions were oriented to treat impending HF. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy of the partners-HF algorithm vs care alert in determining active clinical actions oriented to treat pre-HF status and to prevent an acute decompensation, were also calculated., Results: The study population included 70 patients with moderate to advanced systolic HF and QRS duration longer than 120 ms. During a mean follow-up of 8 ± 2 mo, 665 transmissions were collected. No deaths or HF hospitalizations occurred. The sensitivity and specificity of the partners-HF algorithm for active clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF were 96.9% (95%CI: 0.96-0.98) and 92.5% (95%CI: 0.90-0.94) respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 84.6% (95%CI: 0.82-0.87) and 98.6% (95%CI: 0.98-0.99) respectively. The partners-HF algorithm had an accuracy of 93.8% (95%CI: 0.92-0.96) in determining active clinical actions. With regard to active clinical actions, care alert had a sensitivity and specificity of 11.05% (95%CI: 0.09-0.13) and 93.6% respectively (95%CI: 0.92-0.95). The positive predictive value was 42.3% (95%CI: 0.38-0.46); the negative predictive value was 71.1% (95%CI: 0.68-0.74). Care alert had an accuracy of 68.9% (95%CI: 0.65-0.72) in determining active clinical actions., Conclusion: The partners-HF algorithm proved higher accuracy and sensitivity than care alert in determining active clinical actions oriented to treat impending HF. Future studies in larger populations should evaluate partners-HF ability to improve HF-related clinical outcomes.

Aims: Aim of this observational study is to evaluate the clinical performance of a Syncope Unit, in order to assess whether the implemented organization really improves syncope management., Methods and Results: The study enrolled patients with unexplained syncope who were consecutively referred to our Syncope Unit, either as outpatients or during hospitalization, in a 2-month period. The design of this observational study consists in three phases: a retrospective analysis of their clinical management in the 9 months prior to the first attendance at the Syncope Unit (phase one), their subsequent clinical management in the Syncope Unit (phase two) and a 9-month follow-up (phase three). The retrospective analysis of phase one showed that 25% of patients had already been hospitalized without diagnosis. After Syncope Unit evaluation, diagnosis was obtained in 82% of patients, with 15% of patients indicated to pacing. In the follow-up, 23% of patients experienced a syncopal recurrence. Our analysis indicated an 85% reduction of hospital costs in the follow-up period., Conclusion: The clinical and economic analysis of the three phases of our study demonstrates that a Syncope Unit allows an improved management of patients with syncope.

The authors describe a clinical case with a peculiar sequence of unhealthy events. An operated by osteotomy woman presented a deep venous thrombosis of lever lower extremity with following pulmonary embolism. The patient was treated with heparin. After 5 days, the patient showed a thrombocytopenia, that was not determined by an immune mechanism. The heparin was stopped and the thrombocythemia returned to normal values. But the patient still presented somnolence, asthenia and hypotension. The tests of adrenocortical function showed below normal values. The abdominal CAT showed haemorrhagic necrosis of the suprarenal glands.