Transvenous temporary cardiac pacing therapy (TV-TP) is widely used to treat life-threatening arrhythmias. Yet aggregated evidence on TV-TP is limited. We conducted a systematic scoping review to evaluate indications, access routes and complications of TV-TP, as well as permanent pacemaker therapy (PPM) following TV-TP. Clinical studies concerning TV-TP were identified in Ovid MEDLINE. Case studies and studies lacking complication rates were excluded. To assess complication incidence over time, differences in mean complication rates between 10-year intervals since the introduction of TV-TP were evaluated. We identified 1398 studies, of which 32 were included, effectively including 4546 patients. Indications varied considerably; however TV-TP was most commonly performed in atrioventricular block (62.7%). The preferred site of access was the femoral vein (47.2%). The mean complication rate was 36.7%, of which 10.2% were considered serious. The incidence of complications decreased significantly between 10-year interval groups, but remained high in the most recent time period (22.9%) (analysis of variance; p < 0.001). PPM was required in 64.2% of cases following TV-TP. Atrioventricular block was the primary indication for TV-TP; however indications varied widely. The femoral vein was the most frequent approach. Complications are common in patients undergoing TV-TP. Although a decrease has been observed since its introduction, the clinical burden remains significant. The majority of patients who underwent TV-TP required PPM therapy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-019-01307-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveSudden cardiac death (SCD) in families with premature atherosclerosis (PAS) is generally attributed to lethal arrhythmias during myocardial infarction. Yet, such arrhythmias may also arise from non-ischaemic inherited susceptibility. We aimed to test the hypothesis that Brugada syndrome is prevalent among families with PAS in which SCD occurred.MethodsWe investigated all patients who underwent Ajmaline testing to screen them for Brugada syndrome because of unexplained familial SCD in the Amsterdam University Medical Centers between 2004 and 2017. We divided the cohort into two groups based on a positive family history for PAS. All individuals with a positive Ajmaline test were screened for SCN5A-mutation.ResultsIn families with SCD and PAS, the prevalence of positive Ajmaline test was similar to families with SCD alone (22% vs 19%). The number of SCD cases in families with SCD and PAS was higher (2.34 vs 1.63, p<0.001) and SCD occurred at older age in families with SCD and PAS (42 years vs 36 years, p<0.001), while the prevalence of SCN5A mutations was lower (3% vs 18%, p<0.05).ConclusionsBrugada syndrome has a similar prevalence in families with SCD and PAS as in families with SCD alone, although SCD in families with SCD and PAS occurs in more family members and at older age, while SCN5A mutations in these families are rare. This suggests that the SCD occurring in families with PAS could be related to an underlying genetic predisposition of arrhythmias, with a different genetic origin. It could be considered to screen families with SCD and PAS for Brugada syndrome.

Background In an effort to improve both quality of care and cost-effectiveness, various care-management programmes have been developed for high-need high-cost (HNHC) patients. Early identification of patients at risk of becoming HNHC (i.e. case finding) is crucial to a programme’s success. We aim to systematically identify prediction models predicting future HNHC healthcare use in adults, to describe their predictive performance and to assess their applicability. Methods Ovid MEDLINE® All, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Google Scholar were systematically searched from inception through January 31, 2021. Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment was performed through the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Results Of 5890 studies, 60 studies met inclusion criteria. Within these studies, 313 unique models were presented using a median development cohort size of 20,248 patients (IQR 5601–174,242). Predictors were derived from a combination of data sources, most often claims data (n = 37; 62%) and patient survey data (n = 29; 48%). Most studies (n = 36; 60%) estimated patients’ risk to become part of some top percentage of the cost distribution (top-1–20%) within a mean time horizon of 16 months (range 12–60). Five studies (8%) predicted HNHC persistence over multiple years. Model validation was performed in 45 studies (76%). Model performance in terms of both calibration and discrimination was reported in 14 studies (23%). Overall risk of bias was rated as ‘high’ in 40 studies (67%), mostly due to a ‘high’ risk of bias in the subdomain ‘Analysis’ (n = 37; 62%). Discussion This is the first systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42020164734) of non-proprietary prognostic models predicting HNHC healthcare use. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Most identified models estimated a patient’s risk to incur high healthcare expenditure during the subsequent year. However, case-finding strategies for HNHC care-management programmes are best informed by a model predicting HNHC persistence. Therefore, future studies should not only focus on validating and extending existing models, but also concentrate on clinical usefulness.

No abstract