Contact Force in Atrial Fibrillation: Role of Atrial Rhythm and Ventricular Contractions: Co-Force Atrial Fibrillation Study

In an experimental model, variable and intermittent contact force (CF) resulted in a significant decrease in lesion volume. In humans, variability of CF during pulmonary vein isolation has not been characterized. Methods and Results-In 20 consecutive patients undergoing CF-guided circumferential pulmonary vein isolation, 914 radiofrequency applications (530 in sinus rhythm and 384 in atrial fibrillation) were analyzed. The variability of the 60% CF range (CF60%) was 17 ± 9.6 g. Hundred seventy-one (19%) applications were delivered with constant, 717 (78%) with variable, and 26 (3%) with intermittent CF. The mean CF and force-time integral were significantly higher during applications with variable than with intermittent or constant CF. There was no significant difference in CF variability, CF60% variability, and force-time integral between applications delivered in sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation. The main reasons for CF variability were systolo-diastolic heart movement (29%) and respiration (27%). In 10 additional patients, during adenosine-induced atrioventricular block, the minimum CF significantly increased at 19 sites (5.3 ± 4.4 versus 13.4 ± 5.9 g; P < 0.001) and at 16 sites intermittent or variable CF became constant. At only 1 site systolo-diastolic movement remained the main reason for variable CF. Conclusions-CF during pulmonary vein isolation remains highly variable despite efforts to optimize contact. CF and CF parameters were similar during sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation. The main reasons for CF variability are systolodiastolic heart movement and respiration. The systolo-diastolic peaks and nadirs of CF are because of ventricular contractions at the large majority of pulmonary vein isolation sites.

Quality of care for cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: Development of key interventions and outcome indicators using a two-round Delphi approach

Purpose: Clear recommendations on how to guide patients with cancer on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking as the use of HPN in this population remains a controversial issue. Therefore, the aims of this study were to rank treatment recommendations and main outcome indicators to ensure high-quality care and to indicate differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Methods: Treatment recommendations, identified from published guidelines, were used as a starting point for a two-round Delphi approach. Comments and additional interventions proposed in the first round were reevaluated in the second round. Ordinal logistic regression with SPSS 2.0 was used to identify differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Results: Twenty-seven experts from five European countries completed two Delphi rounds. After the second Delphi round, the top three most important outcome indicators were (1) quality of life (QoL), (2) incidence of hospital readmission and (3) incidence of catheter-related infections. Forty-two interventions were considered as important for quality of care (28/42 based on published guidelines; 14/42 newly suggested by Delphi panel). The topics 'Liver disease' and 'Metabolic bone disease' were considered less important for cancer patients, together with use of infusion pumps (p = 0.004) and monitoring of vitamins and trace elements (p = 0.000). Monitoring of QoL is considered more important for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Using a two-round Delphi approach, we developed a minimal set of 42 interventions that may be used to determine quality of care in HPN patients with malignancies. This set of interventions differs from a similar set developed for benign patients. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.