Search

Purpose Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with multipoint left ventricular (LV) pacing (MultiPoint™ Pacing, MPP) has been shown to improve CRT response, although MPP response using automated pacing vector programming has not been demonstrated in the Middle East. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of MPP to conventional biventricular pacing (BiV) using echocardiographic and clinical changes at 6-month post-implant. Methods This prospective, randomized study was conducted at 13 Middle Eastern centers. After de novo CRT-D implant (Abbott Unify Quadra MP™ or Quadra Assura MP™) with quadripolar LV lead (Abbott Quartet™), patients were randomized to either BiV or MPP therapy. In BiV patients, the LV pacing vector was selected per standard practice; in MPP patients, the two LV pacing vectors were selected automatically using VectSelect. CRT response was defined at 6-month post-implant by a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) ≥ 15%. Results One hundred and forty-two patients (61 years old, 68% male, NYHA class II/III/IV 19%/75%/6%, 33% ischemic, 57% hypertension, 52% diabetes, 158 ms QRS, 25.8% ejection fraction [EF]) were randomized to either BiV (N = 69) or MPP (N = 73). After 6 months, MPP vs. BiV patients experienced greater ESV reduction (25.0% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.08), greater EF improvement (11.9% vs. 8.6%, P = 0.36), significantly greater ESV response rate (68.5% vs. 50.7%, P = 0.04), and significantly greater NYHA class improvement rate (80.8% vs. 60.3%, P = 0.01). Conclusions With MPP and automatic LV vector selection, more CRT patients in the Middle East experienced reverse remodeling and clinical improvement relative to conventional BiV pacing.

Background During the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak of 2014, tertiary care cardiac centers shouldered the responsibility of caring for patients presenting with Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS). This entailed designing algorithms that ensured timely management of patients with ACS in the setting of an emerging novel viral infection that was rapidly spreading within the community with a high infectivity and case fatality rate. The objective of this study is to describe a single center experience and the adopted pathway for the management of ACS. Methods This is a single center retrospective observational study of all patients who were admitted between March 1, 2014 and May 31, 2014 with an ACS. Total ACS admissions, bed turnover, procedures and healthcare personnels' infection rates were obtained from the annual statistics database and employee health records. All baseline characteristics, therapy received, outcomes and MERS-CoV status were obtained from the chart review. Results A total of 148 patients with a diagnosis of ACS were admitted during that period of time. Of those, 59 had STEMI, 42 had NSTEMI and 47 had unstable angina. PCI was performed in 74, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 28 and conservative therapy was prescribed for 46 patients. The bed turnover was no higher than the previous or subsequent two months suggesting no change in practice. The infection rate of MERS-CoV was zero for healthcare workers. Conclusions In times of a national health crisis it is imperative that best practices are upheld to sustain existing resources, reduce bed occupancy and preserve medical personnel. A key component of such a strategy depends on assigning centers dedicated to isolating and treating the highly infectious disease outbreak while allowing other centers to provide expeditious cardiac care., Highlights • Cardiac centers should balance healthcare worker exposure with the provision of timely guideline directed care for acute coronary syndromes. • Compared to COVID19, MERS-CoV patients are highly symptomatic & easily identifiable allowing healthcare systems to adjust clinical pathways. • Assigning centers dedicated to the management of MERS-CoV cases permits tertiary centers to continue to treat ACS in accordance with guidelines.

Background: Hajj is the largest human gathering with over 2 million people. We evaluated the effect of bundle care intervention on mortality. Methods: A population-based, before and after study compared the effect of an intervention on mortality. The intervention included recruitment of cardiac team, introducing 24/7 catheterization service, cardiac coordination, standardized cardiac care pathways, and establishment of an effective transportation system. Results: Cardiac mortality accounted for about 52% of all in-hospital deaths before intervention in 2009. This decreased significantly to 43.3%, 32.5%, and 19.7% in 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. In-hospital mortality of acute coronary syndromes was 4.7%, 4.6%, and 3.0%, in the years 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. Mortality due to other causes remained largely unaffected. There was no significant change in the national mortality due to cardiac causes over the same period provided a reassurance that the observed improvement in in-hospital acute coronary syndrome mortality was not due to overall improvement in health care. The numbers of cardiac catheterization procedures increased 3-fold and cardiac surgical procedures increased 5-fold between 2009 and 2011. Conclusions: In this study, we found that an evidence-based intensive bundle care intervention substantially reduced the cardiac mortality among the pilgrims assembling for Hajj in Makkah.

Background— The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is superior to amiodarone for secondary prophylaxis of sudden cardiac death. However, the magnitude of this benefit over long-term follow-up is not known. Thus, our objective was to evaluate the long-term consequences of using amiodarone versus an ICD as first-line monotherapy in patients with a prior history of sustained ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation or cardiac arrest. Methods and Results— A total of 120 patients were enrolled at St Michael’s Hospital in the Canadian Implantable Defibrillator Study (CIDS) and were randomly assigned to receive either amiodarone (n=60) or an ICD (n=60). The treatment strategy was not altered after the end of CIDS unless the initial assigned therapy was not effective or was associated with serious side effects. After a mean follow-up of 5.6±2.6 years, there were 28 deaths (47%) in the amiodarone group, compared with 16 deaths (27%) in the ICD group ( P =0.0213). Total mortality was 5.5% per year in the amiodarone group versus 2.8% per year in the ICD group (hazard ratio of amiodarone: ICD, 2.011; 95% confidence interval, 1.087 to 3.721; P =0.0261). In the amiodarone group, 49 patients (82% of all patients) had side effects related to amiodarone, of which 30 patients (50% of all patients) required discontinuation or dose reduction; 19 patients crossed over to ICD because of amiodarone failure (n=7) or side effects (n=12). Conclusions— In a subset of CIDS, the benefit of the ICD over amiodarone increases with time; most amiodarone-treated patients eventually develop side effects, have arrhythmia recurrences, or die.