BackgroundAllergic rhinitis (AR) is characterised by burdensome nasal and/or ocular symptoms. This inflammatory disease can be debilitating and thus result in considerable health-related and economic consequences.MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, adult subjects with AR (N = 683) completed three allergy-specific questionnaires that assessed the impact of AR on the work/academic performance, daily activities, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and satisfaction with allergen immunotherapy (AIT). Regression analyses were used to examine the associations between several clinical variables and the patient-reported outcomes.ResultsTotal loss of productivity was 21.0 and 21.2 % for employed and student patients, respectively, whereas the impairment of daily activities was 22.0 %. The mean overall HRQOL score was 1.94 ± 1.29 (on the scale of 0–6 points). Global score for satisfaction with AIT was 65.5 ± 24.8 (on a 0–100 scale). Simple regression analysis found statistically significant associations between loss of work and academic productivity, impairment of daily activities and the type and severity of AR. AIT was a protective factor. The persistent and more severe types of AR and lack of AIT contributed to the worsening of HRQOL.ConclusionsAR (the persistent and more severe form of the disease) has an impact on functional characteristics of adult patients in Spain. AIT might reduce the effect of this disease on the work/academic performance and HRQOL.Trial registration Retrospectively registered

No abstract

Aims The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice. Methods and results A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients. Conclusions This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

No abstract