Background Patients undergoing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations have high rates of long-term device-related complications and reoperations. Whether physician specialty training is associated with differences in long-term outcomes following ICD implantation is unclear. Methods and Results We linked data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry with Medicare fee-for-service claims to identify physicians who performed ≥10 index ICDs from 2006 to 2009.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFA 38-year-old man with history of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and obesity was referred to the electrophysiology clinic for evaluation of infrequent palpitations and remote history of syncope. The patient described a sensation of racing of the heart, which lasted about 30 min to 1 h and occurred several times over the past year. This was associated with a sense of anxiety and shortness of breath and appeared to resolve spontaneously.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPurpose: Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) patients are at increased risk for sudden death. Isolated CS is rare and can be difficult to diagnose.
Methods: In this multicenter retrospective review, patients with CS and an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) were identified.
Aims: Implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation is a class IIA recommendation for patients with cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). However, little is known about the efficacy and safety of ICDs in this population. The goal of this multicentre retrospective data review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICDs in patients with CS.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFObjective: the study aimed to evaluate the prognostic importance of an incidental small pericardial effusion found on echocardiography.
Methods: we identified 10,067 consecutive patients undergoing echocardiography at 1 of 3 laboratories. Patients were excluded if they were referred for evaluation of the pericardium (n = 133), had cardiac surgery within the previous 60 days (n = 393), had a moderate or greater pericardial effusion (>1 cm if circumferential, n = 29), had no follow-up (n = 153), or had inadequate visualization of the pericardial space (n = 9).