Search

Background: There is an unmet need for simple tools for monitoring QT intervals. The feasibility of measuring the QT interval on the single‑lead subcutaneous electrocardiogram (subECG) recorded and transmitted by implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) has never been tested.Methods: We performed a standard ECG in patients who had already been implanted with a long sensing vector ICM (BIOMONITOR, Biotronik SE&Co.) to calculate the corrected QT interval in lead II (QTc ECG). The QTc was then evaluated on the subECG provided by ICM both by using the programmer printout (QTc subECG) and the snapshot transmitted via home monitoring (QTc HM). Values were compared with Bland-Altman analyses.Results: The study cohort consisted of 23 ICM recipients (age 58 ± 19 years, 35% female) implanted mainly for unexplained syncope (78%). The mean QTc ECG interval was 404 ± 31 ms. The T-wave was visible and QTc could be calculated in all patients using the ICM programmer printout and in 21 (91%) patients remotely. The QTc subECG and QTc HM were 405 ± 34 and 406 ± 32 ms. Compared to the QTc ECG, Bland-Altman analyses revealed a bias of -0.9 (95% confidence interval: -6.8/4.9) ms and 0.1 (-12.7/12.9) ms for QTc subECG and QTc HM, respectively.Conclusions: The QTc interval can be reliably estimated on in-person and remote subECG in most patients without bias compared to the ECG lead II assessment. This technology has the potential to facilitate remote QT interval monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several studies report the useful therapeutic results of regional hyperthermia in association with chemotherapy (CHT) and radiotherapy for the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Modulated electro-hyperthermia (mEHT) is a new hyperthermia technique that induces immunogenic death or apoptosis of pancreatic cancer cells in laboratory experiments and increases tumor response rate and survival in pancreatic cancer patients, offering beneficial therapeutic effects against this severe type of cancer., Aim: To assess survival, tumor response and toxicity of mEHT alone or combined with CHT compared with CHT for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer., Methods: This was a retrospective data collection on patients affected by locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (stage III and IV) performed in 9 Italian centers, members of International Clinical Hyperthermia Society-Italian Network. This study included 217 patients, 128 (59%) of them were treated with CHT (no-mEHT) and 89 (41%) patients received mEHT alone or in association with CHT. mEHT treatments were performed applying a power of 60-150 watts for 40-90 min, simultaneously or within 72 h of administration of CHT., Results: Median patients' age was 67 years (range 31-92 years). mEHT group had a median overall survival greater than non-mEHT group (20 mo, range 1.6-24, vs 9 mo, range 0.4-56.25, P < 0.001). mEHT group showed a higher number of partial responses (45% vs 24%, P = 0.0018) and a lower number of progressions (4% vs 31%, P < 0.001) than the no-mEHT group, at the three months follow-up. Adverse events were observed as mild skin burns in 2.6% of mEHT sessions., Conclusion: mEHT seems safe and has beneficial effects on survival and tumor response of stage III-IV pancreatic tumor treatment. Further randomized studies are warranted to confirm or not these results., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)