Explore the vast range of titles available.

Clinical practice guidelines from the American Heart Association recommend consideration of prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent left ventricular thrombus (LVT) formation in patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. These guidelines were given a low certainty of evidence (class IIb, level C), relying primarily on case studies and expert consensus to inform practice. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulation, in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy, in the current era of timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Electronic databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library, were systematically searched from January 2012 through June 2022. A total of 7,378 publications were screened, and 5 publications were eventually included in this review: 1 randomized control trial and 4 retrospective studies involving 1,461 patients. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model and reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome of interest was the rate of LVT formation, and the secondary outcomes were the rate of major bleeding and systemic embolism. Pooled analysis showed a significantly lower rate of LVT formation (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73, p <0.01) and significantly higher rates of bleeding (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.13 to 7.24, p = 0.03) in the triple therapy group compared with dual antiplatelet therapy. No significant difference was observed in the rate of systemic embolism between the groups (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.13, p = 0.08). In this meta-analysis, there is no conclusive evidence to either support or oppose the use of triple therapy for LVT prevention in patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Appropriately powered randomized controlled trials are warranted to further evaluate the benefits of LVT prevention against the risks of major bleeding in this population.

Cybersecurity vulnerabilities of cardiac implantable electronic devices have been an area of increasing concern in the past 4 years. Physicians should be informed of these issues as they evolve so they can counsel their patients with the most accurate and up-to-date information.

Myocardial injury is common in patients admitted to hospital and has been estimated to occur in 8%-28% of patients admitted to hospital for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Myocardial injury, which is defined as an elevated troponin level greater than the 99th upper limit of normal (ULN) may be due to ischemic or non-ischemic myocardial processes in COVID-19. Patients admitted to a critical care setting with COVID-19 have a higher rate of troponin elevation than those admitted to noncritical care settings, with observational studies reporting rates of troponin elevation of as much as 59% among patients who subsequently died. An elevated troponin level has also been shown to be predictive of mortality in critical care populations. Among other studies, a large retrospective cohort study involving a mixed ICU population of nearly 20 000 patients that used a previous acute coronary syndrome as an exclusion criterion showed that troponin elevation was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality when adjusted for illness severity (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.04).

Alexander and Baranchuk talk about the deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Unwanted implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks can lead to substantial distress in the last weeks or months of life in patients with terminal illnesses. Remote deactivation should be explored as a potential solution to the problem. Although technologically feasible, this concept has not been investigated sufficiently, likely because of concerns related to cybersecurity and liability. These concerns could be ameliorated through use of a closed-loop system that requires physical actions through a patient surrogate on site in conjunction with the remote electrophysiology team.

Interatrial block (IAB) represents delay or block of conduction between the atria. IAB has been shown to predict the development or recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in various clinical scenarios. Few studies have examined the correlation between coronary artery disease and the prevalence of IAB and its impact on AF. The aim of this study was to determine if specific coronary artery lesions (location and number) are associated with the presence of IAB and development of new-onset AF. Retrospective analysis of patients presenting with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) to our institution. Data were recorded for clinical, echocardiographic, angiographic, electrocardiographic, and outcome variables. Semiautomatic calipers and scanned electrocardiograms at 300 DPI maximized × 8 were used to measure P-wave duration, with a follow-up for a minimum of 1 year. The chi-square and independent-sample t tests were done using IBM SPSS. A total of 322 patients were included in the analysis. Men 72.3%, mean age 65.4 ± 11.9 years, mean ejection fraction of 55.2 ± 12.7% and mean left atrial diameter of 38.7 ± 6 mm. The prevalence of partial IAB was 31.9%, and advanced IAB was 6.5%. Patients with IAB were significantly older (<0.001) and had a greater prevalence of hypertension (0.014). The presence of diffuse coronary artery disease defined as >1 significant coronary artery lesion was associated with IAB (0.026). No specific coronary artery lesion location was found to be associated with IAB nor increased P-wave duration. Patients who developed AF during the follow-up had a significantly higher prevalence of IAB (p = 0.021) and also higher prevalence of diffuse coronary artery disease (p = 0.001). IAB is significantly associated with diffuse coronary artery disease in patients with NSTEMI. IAB is significantly associated with the development of new-onset AF within 12 months after NSTEMI.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) prevent sudden cardiac death. However, in patients with terminal illnesses, these devices may disrupt the dying process. This study was undertaken to review our current strategies surrounding device deactivation. A retrospective chart review was performed at Kingston Health Sciences Centre of patients with an ICD who died from 2015 to 2018. Data collected included patient demographics, clinical details surrounding device implantation, patient co-morbidities leading to deactivation, time to deactivation, physical place of deactivation, and device programming information. Ethics approval was obtained from the Queen's University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board. A total of 49 patients were included for analysis. Mean age at the time of death was 77.5 years (range: 57 to 94 years) and 12.2% (6/49) were women. The indications for ICD implantation were primary prevention of sudden cardiac death in 69.4% (34/49) and secondary prevention in 30.6% (15/49). Deactivation as part of end-of-life care was performed in 32.7% of patients (16/49). Deactivations occurred in clinic in 6.1% (3/49) of patients, on hospital inpatient wards in 12.2% (6/49) of patients, and in critical care settings in 14.2% (7/49) of patients. The remaining 67.3% (33/49) of patients died with fully functioning devices in place. The most prevalent terminal diagnoses were metastatic cancer (22.4%) and end-stage congestive heart failure (20.4%). On average, patients had their devices deactivated 13 months (range: 0 to 62 months) after their terminal diagnosis was established. Once a patient was documented as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), deactivation was discussed and carried out within a mean time of 38 days (range: 0 to 400 days). Seven patients had their device active for more than 1 month after being documented as DNR. Ten patients (20.4%) received ICD shocks after their terminal diagnosis, 9 received shocks in the month before death, and 2 received shocks after formal DNR orders were in place. Approximately one-third of patients with ICDs received deactivation of their cardioversion/defibrillation therapies as part of their end-of-life care plan. A relatively high proportion of patients (20%) received an ICD shock in the last month of life. In conclusion, addressing device programming needs, including deactivation of cardioversion/defibrillation therapies, should be considered in the context of a patient's goals of care in every patient with an ICD who has a co-existing life-limiting diagnosis.

Heavy alcohol use is a risk factor for disease and mortality; however, epidemiological findings have demonstrated protective effects of a light-to-moderate intake of alcohol on cardiovascular health. There are many misconceptions regarding appropriate levels of alcohol intake and the risks and benefits of consumption. We sought to examine physician attitudes and recommendations regarding alcohol intake in a cohort of Uruguayan cardiologists. A cross-sectional survey of 25 questions was distributed through the Uruguayan Society of Cardiology to attending cardiologists and advanced cardiology trainees. There were 298 respondents; 237 were attending cardiologists and 61 were advanced cardiology trainees. In total, 34% of cardiologists viewed moderate alcohol intake to be beneficial for cardiovascular health, 27% believed only wine offered such benefits, 36% viewed any intake to be harmful, and 3% had other opinions. More than half (57%) self-reported their perceived knowledge to come from academic sources. Regarding knowledge of guidelines, only 42% were aware of the concept of ‘standard drink’ (SD). Cardiologists were not comfortable (on a Likert scale) converting SD into other metric units (1.92 ± 2.77). Cardiologists were not satisfied with their knowledge of drinking guidelines (2.42 ± 2.63); however, men were more comfortable than women (p = 0.003). Cardiologists were generally comfortable in counseling patients regarding safe limits of consumption (5.46 ± 3.08, on a 0–10 scale). Uruguayan cardiologists were not satisfied with their knowledge of drinking guidelines or understanding of the alcohol metric units. This study suggests a necessity to optimize educational resources for physicians. •Uruguayan cardiologists held variable perceptions on alcohol and CV health.•Uruguayan cardiologists' understanding of the drinking metric units was low.•Uruguayan cardiologists were not satisfied with their knowledge of guidelines.