Search

Background and objective Balance between benefit and burden of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy is more debatable in older patients, compared to younger patients. Of around 6000 yearly implanted ICDs in the Netherlands, 1:4 is received by patients ≥75 years. We aimed to evaluate the current clinical practice in the Netherlands for ICD implants and generator replacements, with a special focus on the older ICD patients. Research design and methods Cardiologists from all Dutch ICD implanting centres (n  = 28) were interviewed. Questions aimed to evaluate outpatient care, pre-operative patient assessment, end-of-life-care counselling, evaluation of social and cognitive wellbeing, clinical evaluation of all patients prior to ICD replacement, and the consideration of the option to downgrade or not replace a device. Results Implanting cardiologists from all 28 implanting centres were approached for an interview. Response rate was 86%. Management appeared diverse. An age ≥80 years was consistently reported as incentive for more extensive patient evaluation. Patients were invited for counselling prior to device replacements in only the minority (46%) of hospitals. Downgrade or non-replacement was performed in rare cases. End-of-life care discussions were not standard procedure in 67% of the hospitals. Evaluation of social and cognitive wellbeing of patients was based solely on the general clinical impression of the physician in 83%, or not at all assessed in 8% of the centres. Discussion and implication A structured framework for care and evaluation of cognitive and/or physical limitations is currently absent in most hospitals. At time of ICD (re-)evaluation, several factors may be considered before deciding on (continuation of) ICD therapy: patient preferences and comorbidity, the need for pacemaker therapy, primary vs. secondary prevention, procedural risks, and patient preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current guidelines on coronary anomalies are primarily based on expert consensus and a limited number of trials. A gold standard for diagnosis and a consensus on the treatment strategy in this patient group are lacking, especially for patients with an anomalous origin of a coronary artery from the opposite sinus of Valsalva (ACAOS) with an interarterial course. Aim: To provide evidence-substantiated recommendations for diagnostic work-up, treatment and follow-up of patients with anomalous coronary arteries. Methods: A clinical care pathway for patients with ACAOS was established by six Dutch centres. Prospectively included patients undergo work-up according to protocol using computed tomography (CT) angiography, ischaemia detection, echocardiography and coronary angiography with intracoronary measurements to assess anatomical and physiological characteristics of the ACAOS. Surgical and functional follow-up results are evaluated by CT angiography, ischaemia detection and a quality-of-life questionnaire. Patient inclusion for the first multicentre study on coronary anomalies in the Netherlands started in 2020 and will continue for at least 3 years with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. For patients with a right or left coronary artery originating from the pulmonary artery and coronary arteriovenous fistulas a registry is maintained. Results: Primary outcomes are: (cardiac) death, myocardial ischaemia attributable to the ACAOS, re-intervention after surgery and intervention after initially conservative treatment. The influence of work-up examinations on treatment choice is also evaluated. Conclusions: Structural evidence for the appropriate management of patients with coronary anomalies, especially (interarterial) ACAOS, is lacking. By means of a structured care pathway in a multicentre setting, we aim to provide an evidence-based strategy for the diagnostic evaluation and treatment of this patient group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]