			Home About us Contact

Temporary Interruption (temporary + interruption)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Medical Sciences	100%

Selected Abstracts

Impact of Temporary Interruption of Right Ventricular Pacing for Heart Block on Left Ventricular Function and Dyssynchrony

PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, Issue 1 2010
WEN-JING HONG M.D.
Background:The increasing data suggest an association between chronic right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. We sought to determine the effect of temporary interruption of long-term RV pacing on LV function and mechanical dyssynchrony in children and young adults with complete heart block. Methods:Twelve patients aged 20.0 ± 7.4 years with congenital heart block (group I) and six patients aged 22.7 ± 11.0 years with surgically acquired heart block (group II) with RV pacing were studied. The pacing rate was reduced to less than patient's intrinsic heart rate and maintained for 5 minutes. The LV ejection fraction (EF), three-dimensional systolic dyssynchrony index (SDI), two-dimensional global longitudinal strain and strain rate, and Doppler-derived isovolumic acceleration before and after interruption of RV pacing were compared. Results:The LVEF and GLS increased while QRS duration decreased after the pacing interruption in both the groups (all P < 0.05). While SDI decreased in both groups I (6.8 ± 2.3%, 3.8 ± 0.8%, P = 0.001) and II (9.2 ± 4.1%,5.0 ± 1.6%, P = 0.032), it remained higher in group II than in group I (P = 0.046) after the pacing interruption. The prevalence of LV dyssynchrony (SDI > 4.7%) decreased in group I (83%,25%, P = 0.006) but not in group II (67%,50%, P = 0.50). The %increase in LVEF correlated positively with %reduction of LV SDI (r = 0.80, P = 0.001). Conclusions:Temporary interruption of chronic RV pacing acutely improves LV dyssynchrony and systolic function in children and young adults, the magnitude of which is greater in patients with congenital than those with surgically acquired heart block. (PACE 2010; 41,48) [source]

Clinical outcomes with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin as bridging therapy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulants: the REGIMEN registry,

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 6 2006
A. C. SPYROPOULOS
Summary.,Background: Patients who receive long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy often require interruption of OAC for an elective surgical or an invasive procedure. Heparin bridging therapy has been used in these situations, although the optimal method has not been established. No large prospective studies have compared unfractionated heparin (UFH) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the perioperative management of patients at risk of thromboembolism requiring temporary interruption of long-term OAC therapy. Patients/methods: This multicenter, observational, prospective registry conducted in North America enrolled 901 eligible patients on long-term OAC who required heparin bridging therapy for an elective surgical or invasive procedure. Practice patterns and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received either UFH alone (n = 180) or LMWH alone (n = 721). Results: Overall, the majority of patients (74.5%) requiring heparin bridging therapy had arterial indications for OAC. LMWH, in mostly twice-daily treatment doses, represented approximately 80% of the study population. LMWH-bridged patients had significantly fewer arterial indications for OAC, a lower mean Charlson comorbidity score, and were less likely to undergo major or cardiothoracic surgery, receive intraprocedural anticoagulants or thrombolytics, or receive general anesthesia than UFH-bridged patients (all P < 0.05). The LMWH group had significantly more bridging therapy completed in an outpatient setting or with a < 24-h hospital stay vs. the UFH group (63.6% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.001). In the LMWH and UFH groups, similar rates of overall adverse events (16.2% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P = 0.81), major composite adverse events (arterial/venous thromboembolism, major bleed, and death; 4.2% vs. 7.9%, respectively, P = 0.07) and major bleeds (3.3% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.25) were observed. The thromboembolic event rates were 2.4% for UFH and 0.9% for LMWH. Logistic regression analysis revealed that for postoperative heparin use a Charlson comorbidity score > 1 was an independent predictor of a major bleed and that vascular, general, and major surgery were associated with non-significant trends towards an increased risk of major bleed. Conclusions: Treatment-dose LMWH, mostly in the outpatient setting, is used substantially more often than UFH as bridging therapy in patients with predominately arterial indications for OAC. Overall adverse events, including thromboembolism and bleeding, are similar for patients treated with LMWH or UFH. Postoperative heparin bridging should be used with caution in patients with multiple comorbidities and those undergoing vascular, general, and major surgery. These findings need to be confirmed using large randomized trials for specific patient groups undergoing specific procedures. [source]