Perceptions, Information Sources, and Behavior Regarding Alcohol and Heart Health.

Despite the equipoise regarding alcohol's cardiovascular effects and absence of relevant rigorous controlled trials, the lay press frequently portrays alcohol as "heart healthy." The public perception of alcohol's heart effects, the sources of those perceptions, and how they may affect behavior are unknown. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data obtained from March 2013 to September 2014 from consecutive participants enrolled in the Health eHeart Study. Of 5,582 participants, 1,707 (30%) viewed alcohol as heart healthy, 2,157 (39%) viewed it as unhealthy, and 1,718 (31%) were unsure. Of those reporting alcohol as heart healthy, 80% cited lay press as a source of their knowledge. After adjustment, older age (odds ratio 1.11), higher education (odds ratio 1.37), higher income (odds ratio 1.07), US residence (odds ratio 1.63), and coronary artery disease (odds ratio 1.51) were associated with perception of alcohol as heart healthy (all p <0.003). Ever smokers (odds ratio 0.76, p = 0.004) and those with heart failure (odds ratio 0.5, p = 0.01) were less likely to cite alcohol as heart healthy. Those perceiving alcohol as heart healthy consumed on average 47% more alcohol on a regular basis (95% confidence interval 27% to 66%, p <0.001). In conclusion, of >5,000 consecutive Health eHeart participants, approximately 1/3 believed alcohol to be heart healthy, and the majority cited the lay press as the origin of that perception. Those with a perception of alcohol as heart healthy drink substantially more alcohol.

Randomized trial of conventional transseptal needle versus radiofrequency energy needle puncture for left atrial access (the TRAVERSE-LA study).

BACKGROUND: Transseptal puncture is a critical step in achieving left atrial (LA) access for a variety of cardiac procedures. Although the mechanical Brockenbrough needle has historically been used for this procedure, a needle employing radiofrequency (RF) energy has more recently been approved for clinical use. We sought to investigate the comparative effectiveness of an RF versus conventional needle for transseptal LA access. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective, single-blinded, controlled trial, 72 patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to an RF versus conventional (BRK-1) transseptal needle. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome was time required for transseptal LA access. Secondary outcomes included failure of the assigned needle, visible plastic dilator shavings from needle introduction, and any procedural complication. The median transseptal puncture time was 68% shorter using the RF needle compared with the conventional needle (2.3 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 1.7 to 3.8 minutes] versus 7.3 minutes [IQR, 2.7 to 14.1 minutes], P = 0.005). Failure to achieve transseptal LA access with the assigned needle was less common using the RF versus conventional needle (0/36 [0%] versus 10/36 [27.8%], P < 0.001). Plastic shavings were grossly visible after needle advancement through the dilator and sheath in 0 (0%) RF needle cases and 12 (33.3%) conventional needle cases (P < 0.001). There were no differences in procedural complications (1/36 [2.8%] versus 1/36 [2.8%]). CONCLUSIONS: Use of an RF needle resulted in shorter time to transseptal LA access, less failure in achieving transseptal LA access, and fewer visible plastic shavings.