AimFacebook is an increasingly popular online social networking site. The purpose of this study was to describe the Facebook activity of residents and fellows and their opinions regarding the impact of Facebook on the doctor–patient relationship.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was emailed to 405 residents and fellows at the Rouen University Hospital, France, in October 2009.ResultsOf the 202 participants who returned the questionnaire (50%), 147 (73%) had a Facebook profile. Among responders, 138 (99%) displayed their real name on their profile, 136 (97%) their birthdates, 128 (91%) a personal photograph, 83 (59%) their current university and 76 (55%) their current position. Default privacy settings were changed by 61% of users, more frequently if they were registered for >1 year (p=0.02). If a patient requested them as a ‘friend’, 152 (85%) participants would automatically decline the request, 26 (15%) would decide on an individual basis and none would automatically accept the request. Eighty-eight participants (48%) believed that the doctor–patient relationship would be altered if patients discovered that their doctor had a Facebook account, but 139 (76%) considered that it would change only if the patient had open access to their doctor's profile, independent of its content.ConclusionsResidents and fellows frequently use Facebook and display personal information on their profiles. Insufficient privacy protection might have an impact the doctor–patient relationship.

Introduction Up to 6% of patients experience complications after radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence and predictors of periprocedural complications after RFA for AF. Methods and Results The subjects were 1295 consecutive patients (age=60±10 years) who underwent RFA (n=1642) for paroxysmal (53%) or persistent AF (47%) from January 2007 to January 2010. A complication occurred in 57 patients (3.5%); a vascular access complication in 31 (1.9%); pericardial tamponade in 20 (1.2%); a thromboembolic event in 4 (0.2%); deep venous thrombosis in 1 (<0.01%); and pulmonary vein stenosis in 1 patient (<0.01%). There were no procedure-related deaths. On multivariate analysis, female gender (OR=2.27; ±95% CI: 1.31–2.57, P<0.01) and procedures performed in July or August (OR=2.10; ±95% CI: 1.16–3.80, P=0.01) were independent predictors of any complication. For vascular complications, treatment with clopidogrel (OR=4.40; ±95% CI: 1.43–13.53, P=0.01), female gender (OR=3.65; ±95% CI: 1.72–7.75, P<0.01) and performing RFA in July or August (OR=2.71; ±95% CI: 1.25–5.87, P=0.01) were independent predictors. The only predictor of cardiac tamponade was prior RFA (OR=3.32; ±95% CI: 0.95–11.61; P<0.05). Conclusion Prevalence of perioperative complications for RFA of AF is 3.5% and vascular access complications constitute the majority. The need for clopidogrel therapy should be carefully considered prior to RFA. At teaching institutions close supervision should be exercised during vascular access early in the year. Improvements in ablation technology and elimination of the need for repeat procedures may decrease the risk of pericardial tamponade.

The risk of a periprocedural CVE after RFA of AF is similar among patients ≥65 and <65 years old. Late CVEs after RFA are more prevalent in older than younger patients with AF, and age >75 years old is the only independent predictor of late CVEs regardless of the rhythm, anticoagulation status, or the CHADS(2) score (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age ≥ 75 years, Diabetes mellitus and prior Stroke or transient ischemic attack).

Gastroparesis and PNP could be observed in a significant number of cases after cryoballoon ablation of AF. These complications are likely due to cryo-induced damages to nervous structures surrounding the heart.