Search

Objective: To review the relevant literature on the use of atrioventricular node ablation and pacing in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Methods: A PubMed/MEDLINE and SCOPUS search was performed in order to assess the clinical outcomes of atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation, as well as the complications that may occur. Results: Several clinical trials, observational analyses and meta-analyses have shown that “pace and ablate” strategy not only improves symptoms but also can enhance cardiac performance in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Although this procedure is effective and safe, some complications may occur including worsening of heart failure, permanent fibrillation, arrhythmias and sudden death. Regarding the implantation of pacemaker, cardiac resynchronization therapy is shown to be the optimal choice compared to right ventricle apical pacing. His bundle pacing is a promising alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy and has shown beneficial effects, while left bundle brunch pacing is an innovative modality. Conclusions: Atrioventricular node ablation and implantation of pacemaker is shown to have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation ± heart failure who do not respond or are intolerant to medical treatment. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is the treatment of choice and His bundle pacing seems to be an effective alternative way of pacing in these patients.

This review summarizes the published literature referring to the use and validity of the biomarker soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) when used for the assessment of patients with cardiac diseases. It is measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in plasma samples. In cardiology a cut-off value range of 3.5 - 4.5 ng/mL has been commonly utilized. Different cut-off values may be applied based on the measuring kit used, the patient population and the clinical setting. A PubMed/Medline search was conducted aiming to identify all publications relevant to the use of suPAR in patients with cardiac diseases. A total of 39 studies were included in this review. suPAR as a marker of inflammation has been used more extensively in recent years, alone or in combination with other biomarkers of inflammation and cardiac pathology in the assessment of patients with acute and chronic cardiac diseases. suPAR is closely related to the pathophysiology of cardiac disease, and a number of publications encourages its use as a valuable biomarker in the assessment of patients presenting to the cardiology service. It may be most valuable in the risk assessment of patients with acute coronary syndromes and congestive heart failure, as suPAR elevation may be an independent predictor of mortality in these conditions. In conclusion, among several biomarkers used for clinical entities with underlying inflammatory pathophysiology including cardiac diseases, suPAR is a novel attractive index for the prognostic risk stratification of cardiac patients. More research is warranted to confirm its diagnostic and prognostic validity, alone or combined with other cardiac and inflammatory biomarkers.

Digoxin is a cardiac glycoside, derived from the plant Digitalis purpurea. For many years digitalis has been widely used in the treatment of heart failure (HF), owing to its cardiotonic and neurohormonal effects and atrial fibrillation (AF), due to its parasympathomimetic effect on the AV node.The aim of this paper is to evaluate the available evidence on the safety and efficacy of digoxin in patients with HF and AF, by reviewing the pertinent literature.We conducted a PubMed/MEDLINE and SCOPUS search to evaluate the currently available evidence on the administration of digoxin and its association with all-cause mortality risk in patients with AF and HF.Several observational analyses of clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown conflicting results on the safety and efficacy of digoxin administration in patients with AF and HF. According to these results, digoxin should be avoided in patients without HF, as it is associated with worse outcomes. On the other hand, in patients with AF and HF digoxin should be used with caution.The impact of digoxin on all-cause mortality and adverse effects in these patients remains unclear based on the current evidence. More trials at low risk of bias evaluating the effects of digoxin are needed.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE:The latest developed laser energy modalities provide higher amounts of energy promising better results for urinary stone treatment. Higher amounts of energy can lead to a...