Search

Hospitalizations for acute cardiac conditions have markedly declined during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet the cause of this decline is not clear. Using remote monitoring data of 4,029 patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) living in New York City and Minneapolis/Saint Paul, we assessed changes in markers of cardiac status among these patients and compared thoracic impedance and arrhythmia burden in 2019 and 2020 from January through August. We found no change in several key disease decompensation markers among patients with implanted ICD devices during the first phase of COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that the decrease in cardiovascular hospitalizations in this period is not reflective of a true population-level improvement in cardiovascular health.

Nationwide public health restrictions due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have disrupted people’s routine physical activities, yet little objective information is available on the extent to which physical activity has changed among patients with pre-existing cardiac diseases. Using remote monitoring data of 9,924 patients with pacemakers and implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) living in New York City and Minneapolis/Saint Paul, we assessed physical activity patterns among these patients in 2019 and 2020 from January through October. We found marked declines in physical activity among patients with implantable cardiac devices during COVID-19-related restrictions and the reduction was consistent across age and sex subgroups. Moreover, physical activity among these vulnerable patients did not return to pre-restrictions levels several months after COVID-19 restrictions were eased. Our findings highlight the need to consider the unintended consequences of mitigation strategies and develop approaches to encourage safe physical activity during the pandemic.

There have been no recent descriptions of the spontaneous conversion of long-standing atrial fibrillation (AF) or flutter (AFl) to sinus rhythm which, in the past, has been associated with rheumatic mitral valve disease and treatment with digoxin. We present 3 contemporary cases, all of whom progressed from AF to slow AFl and then spontaneously converted to slow sinus or junctional rhythm. None of these patients had rheumatic heart disease or were treated with digoxin. In conclusion, we believe that they provide support for the broader view that this uncommon phenomenon is associated with a severe atrial myopathy due to scar and inflammation.

Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the primary care setting. Imaging plays a key role in the evaluation of the multiple organ systems that can be responsible for chest pain. With numerous imaging modalities available, determination of the most appropriate test and interpretation of the findings can be a challenge for the clinician. In this 2-part series, we offer resources to guide primary care physicians in the selection of imaging studies and present the imaging findings of various causes of nonemergent chest pain. In Part 2, we focus on the radiologic appearance of common noncardiac sources of chest pain, including gastrointestinal, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal etiologies.

Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the primary care setting. Imaging plays a key role in the evaluation of the multiple organ systems that can be responsible for chest pain. With numerous imaging modalities available, determination of the most appropriate test and interpretation of the findings can be a challenge for the clinician. In this 2-part series, we offer resources to guide primary care physicians in the selection of imaging studies and present the imaging findings of various causes of nonemergent chest pain. In Part 1, we focus on a discussion of the basic concepts of each imaging technique and the appearance of common cardiovascular etiologies of chest pain.

Background— Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia. Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation are at increased risk of stroke; therefore, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of different approaches to prevent this major complication. Methods and Results— We conducted electronic database searches of phase III randomized controlled trials. The groups were novel oral anticoagulants, Watchman left atrial appendage occlusion device (DEVICE), and warfarin. Efficacy outcomes were stroke or systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. Safety outcome was major bleeding and procedure-related complications. A subgroup analysis of the elderly population was done. We used random-effects model to compare pooled outcomes and tested for heterogeneity. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for each outcome. Seven randomized controlled trials (n=73 978) were included. There was a significant difference favoring novel oral anticoagulants for systemic embolism (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72–0.97; P =0.01), all-cause mortality (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84–0.94; P P =0.026) compared with warfarin. No difference was seen between DEVICE and warfarin for efficacy end points; however, DEVICE had more complications (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.14–3.01; P =0.012). In the elderly (6 randomized controlled trials, n=30 699), systemic embolism was favored with novel oral anticoagulants over warfarin (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68–0.87; P ≤0.001). No evidence of significant publication bias was found. Conclusions— Novel oral anticoagulants is superior to warfarin for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. This benefit was also observed in the elderly population. DEVICE is a reasonable noninferior alternative to warfarin for stroke prevention, but cautious use is essential given safety concerns.

Endocardial Fibroelastosis (EFE) is caused by avid proliferation of fibroelastic tissue, often associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) and intracardiac thrombus formation. A 68-year-old Nigerian male with medical history significant for AF and right heart failure presented with dizziness. Physical

Different strategies have been evaluated for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different approaches compared to standard therapy with warfarin. We conducted electronic database searches of phase III

Background: The systolic variation of mitral regurgitation (MR) is a pitfall in its quantification. Current recommendations advocate using quantitative echocardiographic techniques that account for this systolic variation. While prior studies have qualitatively described patterns of systolic variation no study has quantified this variation. Methods: This study includes 41 patients who underwent cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) evaluation for the assessment of MR. Systole was divided into 3 equal parts: early, mid, and late. The MR jets were categorized as holosystolc, early, or late based on the portions of systole the jet was visible. The aortic flow and left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV) acquired by CMR were plotted against time. The instantaneous regurgitant rate was calculated for each third of systole as the difference between the LVSV and the aortic flow. Results: The regurgitant rate varied widely with a 1.9-fold, 3.4-fold, and 1.6-fold difference between the lowest and highest rate in patients with early, late, and holosystolic jets respectively. There was overlap of peak regurgitant rates among patients with mild, moderate and severe MR. The greatest variation of regurgitant rate was seen among patients with mild MR. Conclusion: CMR can quantify the systolic temporal variation of MR. There is significant variation of the mitral regurgitant rate even among patients with holosystolic MR jets. These findings highlight the need to use quantitative measures of MR severity that take into consideration the temporal variation of MR.

Electrical devices integrate more and more capabilities, such as sensors, wireless communication, and low power consumption. They are mainly produced for the entertainment area, like mobile phones, video game console, or MP3 players. The research is about the creation of a network of wireless sensor-based devices. Each device will contain a set of sensors, such as three dimensional acceleration and gyroscopic, magnetic, pressure, humidity, temperature, light. That will allow providing a rich set of useful resources for many industrial applications, including marine, police, health and safety. The main aspect of this communication is that each device will be considered as a transmitter, a receiver and an access point. Therefore, no host point will be necessary, thus making the network more mobile. Each device will be composed of a microcontroller, a ZigBee transceiver and some sensors. The main criteria of success are low-power consumption, small size, low cost of the product’s design, fast and accurate responses between devices. This work also explores the design and creation of a complete board integrating all the components listed above.

This guide is targeted towards individuals that use geographic information system (GIS) technology. It describes several techniques for translating data from Geographic Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) format data files to the ARC/INFO data format used with Environmental Systems Research Institute, INC (ESRI) products. The primary conversion routines discussed here are a result of a collaborative effort between the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) and ESRI. GRASS is a public domain geographic information system originally developed by USACERL. This report is intended to be used as a reference during the data conversion process; it describes the two data formats and contains tips that may facilitate the conversion process.

An86-year-oldwomanwithaknownhistoryofcoronaryarterydisease and a prior percutaneous coronary intervention presented to the emergency department with several episodes of selfresolving chest discomfort occurring at rest. She denied any shortness of breath, palpitations, and diaphoresis. Her home medications included a β-blocker. Her blood pressure was 140/85 mm Hg, and she had an irregular heart rate of 125/min. Figure 1 shows the initial electrocardiogram (ECG) obtained in the emergency department. Question: Does the patient have atrial fibrillation (AF)?