Frequent ventricular tachycardias: antiarrhythmic drug treatment or catheter ablation?

Antiarrhythmic drugs are used in at least 50% of patients who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The potential indications for antiarrhythmic drug treatments in patients with an ICD are generally the following: reduction of the number of ventricular tachycardias (VTs) or episodes of ventricular fibrillation and therefore reduction of the number of ICD therapies, most importantly, the number of disabling ICD shocks. Accordingly, the quality of life should be improved and the battery life of the ICD extended. Moreover, antiarrhythmic drugs have the potential to increase the tachycardia cycle length to allow termination of VTs by antitachycardia pacing and reduction of the number of syncopes. In addition, supraventricular arrhythmias can be prevented or their rate controlled. Recently published or reported trials have shown the efficacy of amiodarone, sotalol and azimilide to significantly reduce the number of appropriate and inappropriate ICD shocks in patients with structural heart disease. However, the use of antiarrhythmic drugs may also have adverse effects: an increase in the defibrillation threshold, an excessive increase in the VT cycle length leading to detection failure. In this situation and when antiarrhythmic drugs are ineffective or have to be stopped because of serious side effects, catheter ablation of both monomorphic stable and pleomorphic and/or unstable VTs using modern electroanatomic mapping systems should be considered. The choice of antiarrhythmic drug treatment and the need for catheter ablation in ICD patients with frequent VTs should be individually tailored to specific clinical and electrophysiological features including the frequency, the rate, and the clinical presentation of the ventricular arrhythmia. Although VT mapping and ablation is becoming increasingly practical and efficacious, ablation of VT is mostly done as an adjunctive therapy in patients with structural heart disease and ICD experiencing multiple shocks, because the recurrence and especially the occurrence of "new" VTs after primarily successful ablation with time and disease progression have precluded a widespread use of catheter ablation as primary treatment.

Invasive coronary treatment strategies for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a consensus statement from the European association for percutaneous cardiovascular interventions (EAPCI)/stent for life (SFL) groups

Due to significant improvement in the pre-hospital treatment of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), an increasing number of initially resuscitated patients are being admitted to hospitals. Because of the limited data available and lack of clear guideline recommendations, experts from the EAPCI and "Stent for Life" (SFL) groups reviewed existing literature and provided practical guidelines on selection of patients for immediate coronary angiography (CAG), PCI strategy, concomitant antiplatelet/anticoagulation treatment, haemodynamic support and use of therapeutic hypothermia. Conscious survivors of OHCA with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) should be treated according to recommendations for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and high-risk non-ST-segment elevation -ACS (NSTE-ACS) without OHCA and should undergo immediate (if STEMI) or rapid (less than two hours if NSTE-ACS) coronary invasive strategy. Comatose survivors of OHCA with ECG criteria for STEMI on the post-resuscitation ECG should be admitted directly to the catheterisation laboratory. For patients without STEMI ECG criteria, a short "emergency department or intensive care unit stop" is advised to exclude non-coronary causes. In the absence of an obvious non-coronary cause, CAG should be performed as soon as possible (less than two hours), in particular in haemodynamically unstable patients. Immediate PCI should be mainly directed towards the culprit lesion if identified. Interventional cardiologists should become an essential part of the "survival chain" for patients with OHCA. There is a need to centralise the care of patients with OHCA to experienced centres.

Esthetic, Functional, and Everyday Life Assessment of Individuals with Cleft Lip and/or Palate

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the level of satisfaction of individuals with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) and their parents concerning the esthetic and functional treatment outcomes, the impact of the cleft on everyday life, and potential associations with treatment outcome satisfaction. SUBJECTS AND METHODS The sample consisted of 33 patients (7 CP, 20 unilateral CLP, and 6 bilateral CLP; median age: 17.1, range: 9.0-33.1 years) and 30 parents, who responded to a questionnaire in an interview-guided session. All participants received their orthodontic treatment at the Department of Orthodontics in the University of Athens. RESULTS Patients and their parents were quite satisfied with esthetics and function. Patients with UCLP primarily were concerned about nose esthetics (BCLP about lip esthetics and CP about speech). Increased satisfaction was associated with decreased influence of the cleft in everyday life (0.35 < rho < 0.64, P < 0.05). Parents reported significant influence of the cleft on family life, while patients did not. CONCLUSIONS Despite the limited sample size of subgroups, the main concerns of patients with different cleft types and the importance of satisfying lip, nose, and speech outcomes for an undisturbed everyday life were quite evident. Thus, the need for targeted treatment strategies is highlighted for individuals with cleft lip and/or palate.