Search

Background: Nurse-led integrated care is expected to improve outcome of patients with atrial fibrillation compared with usual-care provided by a medical specialist., Methods and Results: We randomized 1375 patients with atrial fibrillation (64 ± 10 years, 44% women, 57% had CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2) to receive nurse-led care or usual-care. Nurse-led care was provided by specialized nurses using a decision-support tool, in consultation with the cardiologist. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and cardiovascular hospital admissions. Of 671 nurse-led care patients, 543 (81%) received anticoagulation in full accordance with the guidelines against 559 of 683 (82%) usual-care patients. The cumulative adherence to guidelines-based recommendations was 61% under nurse-led care and 26% under usual-care. Over 37 months of follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 164 of 671 patients (9.7% per year) under nurse-led care and in 192 of 683 patients (11.6% per year) under usual-care [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.04, P = 0.12]. There were 124 vs. 161 hospitalizations for arrhythmia events (7.0% and 9.4% per year), and 14 vs. 22 for heart failure (0.7% and 1.1% per year), respectively. Results were not consistent in a pre-specified subgroup analysis by centre experience, with a HR of 0.52 (95% CI 0.37-to 0.71) in four experienced centres and of 1.24 (95% CI 0.94-1.63) in four less experienced centres (P for interaction <0.001)., Conclusion: Our trial failed to show that nurse-led care was superior to usual-care. The data suggest that nurse-led care by an experienced team could be clinically beneficial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01740037)., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01740037)., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: To investigate the behaviour of the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) function during actual radiotherapy sessions., Methods and Results: Fifteen patients with an ICD underwent 17 radiation treatments for cancer [cumulative dose to the tumour was between 16 Gray (Gy) and 70 Gy; photon beams with maximum energies between 6 megaelectronvolt (MeV) and 18 MeV were employed]. During every session, the ICD was programmed to a monitoring mode to prevent inappropriate therapy delivery. Afterwards, the ICDs were interrogated to ensure proper function. Calculated radiation dose at the ICD site was <1 Gy in all patients. In 5 out of 17 radiation treatments (29%) the ICDs showed 6 malfunctions (35%). We noticed four disturbances in the memory data or device resets during radiation treatment and one case of inappropriate ventricular fibrillation detection due to external noise. In one case a late device data error was observed. All malfunctions occurred at 10 and 18 MeV beam energies., Conclusion: Despite the fact that all recommended precautions were taken to minimize the damage to the ICDs during radiotherapy and the calculated dose to the ICDs was <1 Gy, in 29% of the treatments a malfunction occurred. We observed a possible correlation between the beam energy and the malfunctions. This correlation may be due to an interaction between neutrons produced in the head of the linear accelerator at beam energies ≥10 MeV, and boron-10 which is present in the integrated circuit.

Intubation of the coronary sinus failed during implantation of a biventricular pacing system. An angiogram of the left coronary artery showed in the venous phase a coronary sinus not communicating with the right atrium. The coronary sinus was draining into a persistent left superior vena cava communicating with the left subclavian vein. The coronary sinus lead was successfully implanted through the persistent left superior vena cava, whereas the atrial and ventricular leads were implanted through the right superior vena cava in a conventional way.