Search

Background: The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) undergoing radiotherapy (RT) for cancer treatment is growing. At present, prevalence and predictors of RT‐induced CIEDs malfunctions are not defined. Methods: Systematic review and meta‐analysis conducted following the PRISMA recommendations. PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 31/01/2022 for studies reporting RT‐induced malfunctions in CIEDs patients. Aim was to assess the prevalence of RT‐induced CIEDs malfunctions and identify potential predictors. Results: Thirty‐two out of 3962 records matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta‐analysis. A total of 135 CIEDs malfunctions were detected among 3121 patients (6.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.1%–8.4%). The pooled prevalence increased moving from pacemaker (PM) to implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and cardiac resynchronization therapy and defibrillator (CRT‐D) groups (4.1%, 95% CI: 2.9–5.8; 8.2% 95% CI: 5.9–11.3; and 19.8%, 95% CI: 11.4–32.2 respectively). A higher risk ratio (RR) of malfunctions was found when neutron‐producing energies were used as compared to non‐neutron‐producing energies (RR 9.98, 95% CI: 5.09–19.60) and in patients with ICD/CRT‐D as compared to patients with PM/CRT‐P (RR 2.07, 95% CI: 1.40–3.06). On the contrary, no association was found between maximal radiation dose at CIED >2 Gy and CIEDs malfunctions (RR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.31–2.76). Conclusions: Radiotherapy related CIEDs malfunction had a prevalence ranging from 4% to 20%. The use of neutron‐producing energies and more complex devices (ICD/CRT‐D) were associated with higher risk of device malfunction, while the radiation dose at CIED did not significantly impact on the risk unless higher doses (>10 Gy) were used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many sedimentary successions are composed of metre- to decametre-scale cycles exhibiting various stratal architectures that depend on the complex interplay among several syndepositional controlling factors. These controlling factors may produce extremely different stratal and facies architectures along relatively brief distances in the same basin, but in contrast they also may form similar architectures in basins that experience a radically different tectonic setting. The recognition of factors that controlled the architecture of small-scale cycles, therefore, is very important to reconstruct the depositional history of sedimentary successions. These factors include: 1) the interplay between the rate of accommodation development and the rate of sediment supply (MS); 2) the amplitude and shape of the relative sea-level curve; 3) the position in the shoreface-shelf system; 4) the basin physiography; 5) the shoreline trajectory; 6) the climate-driven environmental energy; 7) the siliciclastic input vs. carbonate production. Shoreface to shelf small-scale cycles can be grouped into three main categories: R cycles, showing a dominant regressive interval; T-R cycles, with transgressive and regressive intervals of similar thickness; T cycles, showing a dominant transgressive interval. Although some depositional settings may favour the deposition of a particular type of cycle, these cycle motifs appear to be mainly controlled by the interaction of local and wider-scale controlling factors. For example, Tcycles may be present in both subsiding and uplifting settings, depending on the interplay between the A/S and the other factors cited above. As a result, R, T-R and Tcycles may be recognized within the same depositional system. These evidences suggest that care must be taken to apply general models that predict the stratal architecture of cycles mainly in function of the long-term A/S. The correct prediction of the cycle architecture is important also for hydrocarbon researches, as the thickness of potential reservoir deposits is the result of the interplay among factors discussed here. Keywords: small-scale cycles; stratal architecture; sequence stratigraphy; parasequences; controlling factors

Field examples from the Pliocene to Pleistocene succession of the Crotone Basin document the variability of stratal architecture in syntectonic units deposited in normal fault-bounded basins. Relatively thick trangressive intervals are common within these successions, as shown in the Zinga 2, Zinga 3 and Strongoli stratal units. Transgressive packages are formed by lagoonal mudstones that are abruptly overlain by shoreface sandstones. Aggradational highstand shallow-marine packages are typical of the lower Pliocene succession in half-graben basins. These deposits resulted from balanced conditions between the rate of sediment supply and the rate of creation of accommodation. Relatively thick forced regressive deposits are common within basins during phases where the accommodation supply ratio is low (e.g. the middle Pleistocene San Mauro Sandstone). These deposits, influenced by growth faulting and folding, recorded base-level lowering linked to glacio-eustasy. A complex stratal architecture may be the consequence of the alternation between tectonic subsidence and uplift (e.g. the Serra Piani stratal unit). Such variations are thought to be related to the onset of an earliest mid-Pliocene transpressional tectonic phase. The studied deposits, therefore, show a marked tectonic control that strongly influenced their stratal architecture. These examples represent interesting cases of sequence-stratigraphic analysis in growth-Faulted contexts.