暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is often underdiagnosed in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients although it is an important risk factor. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess which techniques cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) and Holter monitors use to screen for sleep apnea (SA), and to evaluate if these are suitable for AF patients from a diagnostic accuracy perspective.
METHODS: The search was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-guidelines. PICO was defined as (P) patients with AF, (I) Holter monitors or CIED suitable for screening for SA, (C) overnight polysomnography (PSG), (O) positive screening with subsequent positive polysomnographic diagnosis of SA. Optimal index test cut-off points corresponding to reference test cut-off for severe SA (PSG-AHI ≥ 30) were compared. Meta-analysis was conducted for the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), with forest plot and ROC-curve for summary DOR.
RESULTS: A total of five prospective cohort studies (n = 192) were included in the systematic review of which four studies (n = 132) were included in the meta-analysis. All included studies use transthoracic impedance measurement as a screening parameter. No studies evaluating Holter monitors were included. The population consisted of patients indicated for pacemaker implantation. The summary DOR was 27.14 (8.83; 83.37), AUC was 0.8689 (0.6872; 0.9456) and Q* was 0.8390 (0.7482; 0.9013).
CONCLUSIONS: At optimal pacemaker-cut-off, pacemaker-guided screening for severe SA in patients with AF can be an effective triage tool for clinical practice. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to strengthen the evidence for this conclusion.

Kearns-Sayre syndrome (KSS), a rare form of mitochondrial myopathy, is a triad of chronic progressive external ophthalmoplegia, bilateral pigmentary retinopathy, and cardiac conduction abnormalities. In this report, we show how a combined spinal epidural anesthesia can be useful for cesarean delivery, as we illustrate in a dual-chamber and VVI implantable defibrillator pacemaker/defibrillator parturient with a KSS and preeclampsia.

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is frequent in patients with heart failure due to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) device therapy is currently used for primary prevention. However, publication of the DANISH trial has recently given reason for doubt, showing no significant improvement in all-cause mortality in comparison to contemporary medical therapy.
METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing ICD therapy to medical therapy (MT) for primary prevention in DCM. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary analyses were performed on sudden cardiac death, cardiovascular death and non-cardiac death.
RESULTS: Five trials including a total of 2992 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Compared to contemporary medical treatment there was a significant mortality reduction with ICD device therapy [odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.93; p = 0.006]. SCD was decreased significantly (OR 0.43, CI 0.27-0.69; p = 0.0004), while cardiovascular death and non-cardiac death showed no differences. Sensitivity analyses showed no influence of amiodarone therapy on overall results. Analysis of MT details revealed the DANISH population to adhere the most to current guideline recommendations. In addition, it was the only study including a substantial amount of CRT devices (58%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of all available randomized evidence shows a survival benefit of ICD therapy for primary prevention in DCM. DANISH results suggest an attenuation of this ICD advantage when compared to contemporary medical and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Until larger trials have confirmed this finding, ICD therapy should remain the recommendation for primary prevention of SCD in DCM.

BACKGROUND: Recent results from the largest multicenter randomized trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]) on defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing suggest that while shock testing seems safe, it does not reduce the risk of failed shocks or prolong survival. A contemporary systematic review of DFT versus no-DFT testing at the time of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation was performed to evaluate the current evidence and to assess the impact of the SIMPLE study.
RESULTS: Electronic searches were performed using 6 databases from their inception to March 2014. Relevant studies investigating implant DFT were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed according to predefined clinical end points. Predefined outcomes for interrogation were all-cause mortality, composite end point of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator efficacy (arrhythmic deaths and ineffective shocks), and composite safety end point (the sum of complications recorded at 30 days). Meta-analysis was performed including 13 studies and 9740 patients. No significant differences between DFT versus no-DFT cohorts were found in terms of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.15; P=0.41), composite efficacy outcome (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-3.37; P=0.51), and 30-day postimplant complications (risk ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.60; P=0.29). No significant difference was found in the trends observed when the results of the SIMPLE study were excluded or included.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of contemporary data suggests a modest average effect of DFT, if any, in terms of mortality, shock efficacy, or safety. Therefore, DFT testing should no longer be compulsory during de novo implantation. However, DFT testing may still be clinically relevant in specific patient populations.

Despite the indisputable mortality advantages of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), no consensus exists regarding their impact on quality of life (QoL). This systematic review investigates differences in QoL between patients with ICDs and controls. We systematically searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and PsychINFO databases. Articles were included if they were published after the year 2000 and reported on original studies with a control group. Five randomized controlled trials with a total of 5,138 patients and 10 observational studies with a total of 1,513 patients met the inclusion criteria. Nine studies found comparable QoL for ICD recipients and patients in the control groups, three studies found an increased QoL for ICD patients, and three studies found a decreased QoL for ICD patients. The question of whether QoL relates to ICD therapy cannot be answered conclusively due to the heterogeneity of the existing studies. Lower QoL was apparent among patients with an ICD who experienced several device discharges. Medical staff should be particularly aware of the signs of both psychological and physical disorders in these patients. Further investigations on QoL in ICD patients are desirable, but ethical reasons restrict the conduct of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, indications for cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) have broadened; however, budget constraints can significantly impact patient access to these life-saving health technologies.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic literature review on the implant rates of pacemakers, cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices in Europe over the last decade to provide insight into the possible reasons for differences across regions or countries.
METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched to find studies describing CIED implant rates in Europe. Fifty-eight studies were included.
RESULTS: An overview showed a recent rise in CIED implants, with large geographic differences. The ratio between the regions with the highest and lowest implant rates within the same country ranged between 1.3 and 3.4 for pacemakers and between 1.7 and 44.0 for defibrillators. The ratio between the countries with the highest and lowest implant rates ranged between 2.3 and 87.5 for pacemakers, between 3.1 and 1548.0 for defibrillators, and between 4.1 and 221.0 for resynchronization therapy devices. Implant rate variability appears to be influenced by health care, economic, demographic, and cultural factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Publications on CIED implant rates in Europe show a wide variability within and across countries, the determinants of which are only partially investigated. Policy making should improve regarding equity of access to better care.