Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book combines autobiography and innovative narrative research to create an original psychosocial perspective on the often taboo subject of sudden, unexpected child death. Beginning with the author?s own experience, the book investigates manifold aspects of sudden, unexpected child death, including the professional rapid response; contemporary cultural reactions to death; theories of grieving; child death inquiries and popular media reporting. 0At the heart of the book are intimate personal stories, drawn from unprecedented psychosocial research on this topic, which combine to create a unique record of parent?s experiences following the sudden and unexpected death of a child. Additionally, the book offers original guidance on the Biographic Narrative Interpretive methodology, which extends knowledge of group data analysis. 0The book will be of great methodological interest to the psychosocial community, as well as to health and social care professionals and lay readers interested in both sudden, unexpected child death and the wider field.\"--Publisher's description.

Patients with an indication for an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator but no indication for pacing were randomly assigned to a subcutaneous or a transvenous ICD. At 49 months, the subcutaneous ICD was noninferior to the transvenous ICD with respect to device-related complications and inappropriate shocks.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for 10–20% of total mortality, i.e., one in five individuals will eventually die suddenly. Given the substantial genetic component of SCD in younger cases, postmortem genetic testing may be particularly useful in elucidating etiological factors in the cause of death in this subset. The identification of genes responsible for inherited cardiac diseases have led to the organization of cardiogenetic consultations in many countries worldwide. Expert recommendations are available, emphasizing the importance of genetic testing and appropriate information provision of affected individuals, as well as their relatives. However, the context of postmortem genetic testing raises some particular ethical, legal, and practical (including economic or financial) challenges. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with international experts, developed recommendations on management of SCD after a workshop sponsored by the Brocher Foundation and ESHG in November 2016. These recommendations have been endorsed by the ESHG Board, the European Council of Legal Medicine, the European Society of Cardiology working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases, the ERN GUARD-HEART, and the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology. They emphasize the importance of increasing the proportion of both medical and medicolegal autopsies and educating the professionals. Multidisciplinary collaboration is of utmost importance. Public funding should be allocated to reach these goals and allow public health evaluation.

Patients with acute MI and an ejection fraction of 35% or less were randomly assigned to receive a wearable cardioverter–defibrillator plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone. At 90 days, there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of arrhythmic death.

•A minority of post-MI patients with LVEF ≤ 35% ever need their primary prevention ICD.•Pharmacotherapy has advanced since previous trials for primary prevention ICD.•This trial will reassess the role of primary prevention ICD in contemporary practice. Randomized clinical trials from over 20 years ago demonstrated that an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) improved survival for patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after myocardial infarction (MI) compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. Since then advances in therapy have led to the reduction in the incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in this population, whilst complication rates from ICD implantation are still substantial. To determine whether OMT without ICD implantation is not inferior to OMT with ICD implantation with respect to all-cause mortality. The PROFID EHRA trial is an investigator-driven, prospective, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, blinded outcome assessment (PROBE), multi-center, noninferiority trial without dedicated investigational medical device (Proof of Strategy Trial) with 2 groups with 1:1 randomization. PROFID-EHRA will recruit approximately 3,595 patients with documented history of MI at least 3 months prior, LVEF ≤35%, on OMT for at least 3 months, and with New York Heart Association class II or III, who will be randomized to OMT or OMT plus ICD, to collect 374 first primary outcome events within a median observation period of around 28 months from about 180 clinical sites in an estimated 13 countries. The primary outcome is time from randomization to the occurrence of all-cause death. Secondary outcomes include time from randomization to death from cardiovascular causes, to SCD, to first hospital readmission for cardiovascular causes after date of randomization, the average length of hospital stay during follow-up, and quality of life trajectories. Trials.gov NCT05665608

A one-dose-fits-all approach to use of aspirin has yielded only modest benefits in long-term prevention of cardiovascular events, possibly due to underdosing in patients of large body size and excess dosing in patients of small body size, which might also affect other outcomes. Using individual patient data, we analysed the modifying effects of bodyweight (10 kg bands) and height (10 cm bands) on the effects of low doses (≤100 mg) and higher doses (300–325 mg or ≥500 mg) of aspirin in randomised trials of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular events. We stratified the findings by age, sex, and vascular risk factors, and validated them in trials of aspirin in secondary prevention of stroke. Additionally, we assessed whether any weight or height dependence was evident for the effect of aspirin on 20-year risk of colorectal cancer or any in-trial cancer. Among ten eligible trials of aspirin in primary prevention (including 117 279 participants), bodyweight varied four-fold and trial median weight ranged from 60·0 kg to 81·2 kg (p<0·0001). The ability of 75–100 mg aspirin to reduce cardiovascular events decreased with increasing weight (pinteraction=0·0072), with benefit seen in people weighing 50–69 kg (hazard ratio [HR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·65–0·85]) but not in those weighing 70 kg or more (0·95 [0·86–1·04]; 1·09 [0·93–1·29] for vascular death). Furthermore, the case fatality of a first cardiovascular event was increased by low-dose aspirin in people weighing 70 kg or more (odds ratio 1·33 [95% CI 1·08–1·64], p=0·0082). Higher doses of aspirin (≥325 mg) had the opposite interaction with bodyweight (difference pinteraction=0·0013), reducing cardiovascular events only at higher weight (pinteraction=0·017). Findings were similar in men and women, in people with diabetes, in trials of aspirin in secondary prevention, and in relation to height (pinteraction=0·0025 for cardiovascular events). Aspirin-mediated reductions in long-term risk of colorectal cancer were also weight dependent (pinteraction=0·038). Stratification by body size also revealed harms due to excess dosing: risk of sudden death was increased by aspirin in people at low weight for dose (pinteraction=0·0018) and risk of all-cause death was increased in people weighing less than 50 kg who were receiving 75–100 mg aspirin (HR 1·52 [95% CI 1·04–2·21], p=0·031). In participants aged 70 years or older, the 3-year risk of cancer was also increased by aspirin (1·20 [1·03–1·47], p=0·02), particularly in those weighing less than 70 kg (1·31 [1·07–1·61], p=0·009) and consequently in women (1·44 [1·11–1·87], p=0·0069). Low doses of aspirin (75–100 mg) were only effective in preventing vascular events in patients weighing less than 70 kg, and had no benefit in the 80% of men and nearly 50% of all women weighing 70 kg or more. By contrast, higher doses of aspirin were only effective in patients weighing 70 kg or more. Given that aspirin's effects on other outcomes, including cancer, also showed interactions with body size, a one-dose-fits-all approach to aspirin is unlikely to be optimal, and a more tailored strategy is required. Wellcome Trust and National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP) can affect individuals of any age, but is most common in younger adults (aged 20–45 years). Generalised tonic-clonic seizures are the greatest risk factor for SUDEP; most often, SUDEP occurs after this type of seizure in bed during sleep hours and the person is found in a prone position. SUDEP excludes other forms of seizure-related sudden death that might be mechanistically related (eg, death after single febrile, unprovoked seizures, or status epilepticus). Typically, postictal apnoea and bradycardia progress to asystole and death. A crucial element of SUDEP is brainstem dysfunction, for which postictal generalised EEG suppression might be a biomarker. Dysfunction in serotonin and adenosine signalling systems, as well as genetic disorders affecting cardiac conduction and neuronal excitability, might also contribute. Because generalised tonic-clonic seizures precede most cases of SUDEP, patients must be better educated about prevention. The value of nocturnal monitoring to detect seizures and postictal stimulation is unproven but warrants further study.

Current recommendations for a prophylactic (primary prevention) implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with both ischemic and nonischemic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) originate from clinical trials conducted in selected patients over 20 years ago that showed an overall statistically significant survival benefit associated with a primary prevention ICD in the range of 23%-34%. The recent introduction of angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors [ARNI] and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors [SGLT2i]) was shown to further reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with HFrEF. Thus, there is an unmet need appropriately designed comparative effectiveness clinical trials aimed to reassess the survival benefit of a primary prevention ICD in contemporary patients with HFrEF. The comparative effectiveness of ICD vs non-ICD therapy in contemporary heart failure patients at a low risk for arrhythmic death (CONTEMP-ICD) trial is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized-controlled trial; enrolling 3,290 participants with HFrEF who are treated with optimal stable GDMT and are eligible for a primary prevention ICD, but have a lower predicted risk of life-threatening ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA) than nonarrhythmic mortality. Enrolled participants will be randomized to non-ICD vs ICD treatment arms and will be followed over an average period of 3.5 years. The specific aims of the proposed clinical trial are to: (1) Compare the risk of all-cause mortality of non-ICD vs ICD in HFrEF patients who have a lower predicted risk of VTA than nonarrhythmic mortality per the MADIT-ICD Benefit Score; (2) Evaluate whether non-ICD vs ICD is associated with improved survival free of major CV events in patients with HFrEF who are at a lower predicted arrhythmic risk; (3) Assess healthcare utilization and quality of life implications of non-ICD vs ICD management approaches in HFrEF patients who are at a lower predicted arrhythmic risk; and (4) Determine the effect of non-ICD vs ICD management on all-cause mortality in prespecified subgroups. We hypothesize that, in patients with HFrEF who are at a lower predicted arrhythmic risk, non-ICD vs ICD is noninferior with respect to the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and superior with respect to the secondary endpoint of survival free of major CV events. NCT06543446; https://contemp-icd.org.

For patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), current guidelines recommend implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) when left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is ≤35%, but the DANISH trial failed to confirm that ICDs reduced all-cause mortality for such patients. Circumstantial evidence suggests that scar on CMR is predictive of sudden and arrhythmic death in this population. The presence of myocardial scar identified by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with NICM and an LVEF ≤35% might identify patients at higher risk of sudden arrhythmic death, for whom an ICD is more likely to reduce all-cause mortality. The BRITISH trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial aiming to enrol 1,252 patients with NICM and an LVEF ≤35%. Patients with a nonischemic scar on CMR will be randomized to either: (1) ICD, with or without cardiac resynchronization (CRT-D), or (2) implantable loop recorder (ILR) or cardiac resynchronization (CRT-P). Patients who are screened for the trial but are found not to be eligible, predominantly due to an absence of scar or those who decline to be randomized will be enrolled in an observational registry. The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality, which we plan to assess at 3 years after the last participant is randomized. Secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes, appropriate and inappropriate device therapies, symptom severity and well-being, device-related complications, and analysis of the primary endpoint by subgroups with other risk markers. The BRITISH trial will assess whether the use of CMR-defined scar to direct ICD implantation in patients with NICM and an LVEF ≤35% is associated with a reduction in mortality.