The new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has recently been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). 1 The disease was defined as COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) 1 and principally affects the respiratory tract with a clinical scenario ranging from common cold to severe pneumonia. Diagnosis of

No abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a multifaceted disease requiring personalised treatment. The aim of our study was to explore the prognostic impact of a patient-specific therapy (PT) for rate control, including the use of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (NDDC) in patients with heart failure (HF) or in combination with beta-blockers (BB), compared to standard rate control therapy (ST), as defined by previous ESC guidelines. This is a single-centre prospective observational registry on AF patients who were followed by our University Hospital. We included 1112 patients on an exclusive rate control treatment. The PT group consisted of 125 (11.2%) patients, 93/125 (74.4%) of whom were prescribed BB + NDCC (±digoxin), while 85/125 (68.0%) were HF patients who were prescribed NDCC, which was diltiazem in all cases. The patients treated with a PT showed no difference in one-year overall survival compared to those with an ST. Notably, the patients with HF in ST had a worse prognosis (p < 0.001). To better define this finding, we performed three sensitivity analyses by matching each patient in the PT subgroups with three subjects from the ST cohort, showing an improved one-year survival of the HF patients treated with PT (p = 0.039). Our results suggest a potential outcome benefit of NDCC for rate control in AF patients, either alone or in combination with BB and in selected patients with HF.

BackgroundDespite the common use of biphasic electrical cardioversion (ECV) to convert atrial fibrillation (AF), we lack definite recommendations on electrode configuration.MethodsWe adopted a quasi-experimental design enrolling all candidates to ECV for AF. In the first stage, two units were involved, one using antero-apical pads (AAP) and the second antero-posterior adhesive patches (APP). These data enabled the creation of a decision algorithm to personalize the ECV approach, which was subsequently validated during the second stage.ResultsA total of 492 patients were enrolled overall. In the first stage, APP and AAP presented similar conversion rates (87.4 vs. 86.9% at first attempt of a step-up protocol, P = 0.661). While body surface area (BSA) ≤2.12 m2 was an independent predictor in the overall population, the two components (height and weight) acted differently in the two configurations: being height ≤1.73 m2 a significant cut-off value in the AAP subgroup, and weight <83 kg in the APP subgroup. Considering these cut-offs, we developed a decision algorithm for electrode configuration. In the second stage, algorithm validation confirmed an improvement in the first shock efficacy with respect to the results of the first stage (93.2 vs. 87.2%, P = 0.025), with a significant reduction in shock impedance (70.8 ± 15.3 vs. 81.8 ± 15.6, P < 0.001).ConclusionPatients with high BSA require high energy shocks for sinus rhythm restoration with ECV. Weight seems to affect more APP configuration, while height seems to impact more for the AAP. These findings have the potential to optimize ECV in clinical practice.