ABSTRACT
Aims: Virtual reality hypnosis (VRH) has been used successfully in various clinical settings to decrease anxiety and the sensation of pain. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of VRH in patients undergoing electrophysiology and pacing procedures under conscious sedation. Methods: During a two-month period, VRH support was proposed and accepted by 25 patients undergoing electrophysiological procedures. Data were compared with a control group (n = 61) enrolled during the following three-month period. Both groups underwent the measurement of the duration of intervention, the consumption of analgesics and hypnotics, and their pain and comfort using a validated visual analogue scale (VAS 0−10). Results: The baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups, including age. There were no differences in procedure duration (46 (±29) vs. 56 (±32) min, p = 0.18) or in hypnotic/antalgic consumption (midazolam 1.95 (±1.44) vs. 2.00 (±1.22) mg, p = 0.83; sufentanyl 3.78 (±2.87) vs. 3.58 (±2.48) µg, p = 0.9) between the control and VRH groups. In a multivariate analysis, the use of VRH was independently associated with lower comfort during the procedure assessed by postoperative visual analogue scale (OR 15.00 [95% CI 4.77−47.16], p < 0.01). There was no influence of VRH use on pain or drug consumption. Conclusions: In our experience, compared with VRH, human care is preferable during procedures in electrophysiology lab to improve the comfort of the patient. VRH has no influence on pain or drug consumption.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Biomarkers are not recommended until now to guide the management of patients with heart failure (HF). Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) appears as a promising biomarker. The current study considered pre-discharged sST2 values as a guide for medical management in patients admitted for acute HF decompensation, in an attempt to reduce hospital readmission. METHODS AND RESULTS: STADE-HF was a blinded prospective randomized controlled trial and included 123 patients admitted for acute HF. They were randomized into the usual treatment group (unknown sST2 level) or the interventional treatment group, for whom sST2 level was known and used on Day 4 of hospitalization to guide the treatment. The primary endpoint was the readmission rate for any cause at 1 month. It occurred in 10 patients (19%) in the usual group and 18 (32%) in the sST2 group without statistical difference (P = 0.11). Post hoc analysis in the whole group shows that the mean duration of hospitalization was lower in patients with low sST2 (<37 ng/mL) at admission vs. high sST2 (8.5 ± 9.5 vs. 14.8 ± 14.9 days, respectively, P = 0.003). In addition, a decrease in sST2 greater than 18% is significantly associated with a lower readmission rate. CONCLUSIONS: Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2-guided therapy over a short period of time does not reduce readmissions. However, sST2 was clearly associated with duration of hospitalization, and the decrease in sST2 was associated with decreased rehospitalizations. Long-term outcome using sST2-guided therapy deserves further investigations.
