Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Richard W Asinger.
Bigeminy is an often encountered arrhythmia in clinical practice. There are common and uncommon mechanisms for bigeminy. Typical examples are illustrated with their salient electrocardiographic and clinical features. When one encounters a bigeminal rhythm, an awareness of these numerous possibilities will facilitate arriving at the correct diagnosis, which is where quality patient care begins.
BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and European Society of Cardiology Board (ACC/AHA/ESC) 2001 guidelines for management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) include a new classification system consisting of 4 categories: first-detected episode; recurrent paroxysmal (self-terminating); recurrent persistent (requiring cardioversion); and permanent. The frequency of hospital discharges within these categories has not been reported. METHODS: The new classification system was applied to 135 consecutive hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of AF. RESULTS: Classification of AF in these discharged patients included 74 (55%) with first-detected episode; 28 (21%) with recurrent paroxysmal AF; 17 (13%) with recurrent persistent AF; and 16 (12%) with permanent AF. Hypertension (n = 48; 35%) was the most common primary cause of AF, followed by alcohol related (n = 23; 17%), coronary artery disease (n = 20; 15%), and valvular heart disease (n = 17; 12%). For the 102 patients with first-detected and recurrent paroxysmal AF, 71 (69%) converted spontaneously to normal sinus rhythm within 48 hours of admission. Of the 48 patients with a discharge diagnosis of AF, 32 (67%) were receiving anticoagulation therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospital discharges with a principal diagnosis of AF represent the first-detected episode. Diverse causes contribute to AF, and to examine them would help direct therapy. Importantly, in our analysis, 69% of those patients with first-detected or recurrent paroxysmal AF converted spontaneously to normal sinus rhythm within 48 hours of admission.
BACKGROUND: Patients referred for stress echocardiography may differ significantly from those referred for stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). Such differences, if present, should be considered when comparing the accuracy and discriminatory performance of these tests. METHODS: We prospectively collected demographic and clinical information on all stress imaging studies performed at our institution between 1998 and 2001. The data were reviewed, summarized, and compared using the t test and chi2 test where appropriate. RESULTS: Of 5320 stress imaging studies performed, 3383 were stress echocardiographies and 1937 were MPI studies. Patients referred for MPI were older (59 vs 54, P < .0001), and more likely to have diabetes (32% vs 20%, P < .0001), prior myocardial infarction (39% vs 15%, P < .0001), and prior revascularization (38% vs 12%, P < .0001). Pharmacologic stress testing was much more common in the MPI group (66% vs 17%, P < .0001). More patients referred for MPI had decreased left ventricular function (23% vs 7%, P < .0001) and abnormal stress test results (41% vs 18%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a history of myocardial infarction, revascularization, or higher risk profiles are more likely to be referred for MPI compared to stress echocardiography at our institution. These differences in referral patterns are likely to exist in other centers, and it is reasonable to assume that systematic differences in test selection occur, resulting in patient populations with differing clinical risk profiles. Caution in interpreting analyses comparing the accuracy of stress imaging modalities is appropriate.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.