PubMed · 16509449
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Corinna B Brunckhorst. 2006-02-01. [Conversion in sinus rhythm].. https://doi.org/10.1024/0369-8394.95.5.137
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: * Therapeutic drug monitoring of serum digoxin concentrations (SDC) is considered useful in enhancing the therapeutic benefits of digoxin and minimizing the incidence of adverse drug reactions. * The quality of requests for SDC has been reported to be generally unsatisfactory. However, studies have focused on few information parameters. * A better knowledge of these issues might be useful to target appropriate areas of weakness within heathcare systems. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: * The poor quality of the information in SDC requests involves a wide range of codes from the contact details of the requester to the time interval between the last dose of digoxin and blood sampling. * Misuse of the therapeutic drug monitoring service is common across different specialties and healthcare settings. AIMS: To assess the quality of the information provided with serum digoxin concentration (SDC) requests received by a therapeutic drug monitoring service in a regional health service. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective audit of a consecutive series of 685 SDC requests during a 7-month period. Information regarding (i) contact details, (ii) reasons for request, (iii) dose, (iv) route of administration, (v) concurrent therapy, (vi) treatment duration and (vii) time interval between the last dose and sampling was reviewed and coded as appropriate or inappropriate/missing. Data were analysed according to the origin of request, i.e. from different specialties/wards (emergency department and critical care, cardiology and coronary care unit, medicine and aged care, surgery, and general/private practice) and healthcare settings (teaching hospital, geriatric hospital and general/private practice). RESULTS: The quality of SDC requests was generally poor across different specialties and healthcare settings. The information provided for the coded parameters was appropriate only in 19.1% (i), 6.4% (ii), 54.7% (iii), 45.8% (iv), 12.8% (v), 32.9% (vi) and 47.1% (vii) of cases. No SDC request was complete in all the information codes. SDC requests from general/private practice lacked more often details regarding the dose (information provided in 46.7% of requests, P = 0.007 vs. other specialties; P = 0.02 vs. other settings) and the route of administration (20.0%, P < 0.001 vs. other specialties and vs. other settings). SDC requests from the emergency department and critical care unit lacked more often details regarding the treatment duration (22.6%, P < 0.001 vs. other specialties) and the time interval between the last dose and blood sampling (40.1%, P = 0.01 vs. other specialties). CONCLUSIONS: The quality of the information in SDC requests is poor across different specialties and healthcare settings. Educational strategies to ensure the appropriate use of this service are urgently needed.
In patients with atrial fibrillation, a decision must be made whether to accept the arrhythmia (rate control) or to pursue maintenance of sinus rhythm (rhythm control). Randomized trials have shown no difference between these strategies with respect to morbidity, mortality, and quality of life. In these studies, morbidity and mortality appeared to be related predominantly to the underlying heart disease rather than to the arrhythmia itself. However, other analyses suggest that long-term sinus rhythm may improve prognosis. At any rate, complaints caused by the arrhythmia may definitely be a reason to strive for rhythm control. If pharmacological rhythm control fails, maze surgery, both in patients with lone atrial fibrillation and as concomitant surgery, is highly successful. This, however, necessitates cardiac surgery. New techniques have now emerged, including pulmonary vein isolation by means of percutaneous catheter ablation. This is less invasive and therefore nowadays the treatment of first choice if pharmacological rhythm control has failed.
AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence, features, and clinical sequelae of 'electrical storm' (ES). METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a prospectively designed secondary analysis of SHIELD; a randomized trial of azimilide for suppression of ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation (VT/VF) leading to implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapies. Systematic and rigorous follow-up and blinded adjudication of ICD therapy allowed identification of all ESs (>/=3 separate VT/VF episodes leading to ICD therapies within 24 h). Of 633 ICD recipients, 148 (23%) experienced at least one ES over 1-year follow-up. No clinical predictors of ES were identified. Frequent VT episodes accounted for 91% of all ESs, with the remaining being VF alone or both VT plus VF. ES led to a 3.1-fold increase in arrhythmia-related hospitalization (95% CI 2.3-4.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients with isolated VT/VF, and to a 10.2-fold increase (95% CI 6.4-16.3; P<0.0001) compared with patients without VT/VF. Compared with placebo, azimilide (75 and 125 mg/day) reduced the risk of recurrent ES by 37% (HR=0.63, 95% CI 0.35-1.11, P=0.11) and 55% (HR=0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.87, P=0.018), respectively. However, the reduction in time-to-first ES did not reach statistical significance by both doses (75 and 125 mg) of azimilide (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56-1.19, P=0.29 and HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.46-1.04, P=0.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: ES is common and unpredictable in ICD recipients and it is a strong predictor of hospitalization.