Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) may be a viable option for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and a contraindication for oral anticoagulation. No evidence evaluating the safety of this procedure in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) exists. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether CIED function is affected by LAAO and to explore LAAO procedural characteristics and complications in patients with a CIED. METHODS: This single-center cohort study included consecutive patients scheduled for percutaneous LAAO. Patients with a CIED prior to LAAO were selected and compared to the patients without CIED, concerning procedural characteristics and peri-procedural complications. In the group of patients with CIEDs, essential pacemaker integrity parameters were compared before and after the procedure to detect possible micro and macro lead displacements. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with CIED were scheduled for LAAO (age 73.7 ± 5.4 years, 65% males, CHA2DS2-VASc 4.3 ± 1.5, and HAS-BLED 3.3 ± 1.0). The 245 patients without CIED were younger, and HAS-BLED-score was slightly lower (69.4 ± 8.2 years, p < 0.001; 2.8 ± 1.0, p = 0.022). Patients without CIED more frequently underwent LAAO combined with catheter ablation (p = 0.002). All other procedural characteristics were comparable between both groups. No visible lead displacement was observed on chest X-ray after LAAO. Additionally, no differences in impedance, threshold, or intracardiac sensing in various CIED lead locations were found prior versus post LAAO. CONCLUSION: This study supports the feasibility and safety of LAAO in patients with a CIED.

Diagnosed with a common cancer at an unusual age: causal attributions of survivors of adolescent and young adult colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Insight into the causes of colorectal cancer (CRC) in adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients is limited. Without definitive information, patients often shape their own beliefs on the cause of their illness, developing causal attributions. This study aims to examine the causal attributions of CRC in AYA patients, compare these with middle-aged and older adults CRC patient groups and explore the association between causal attributions and psychological distress. METHODS: Two cross-sectional questionnaire studies were conducted among CRC survivors diagnosed between 1998 and 2007 using the population-based PROFILES registry. Three groups were defined by age at diagnosis: AYA (18-39 years; n = 67), middle-aged (40-70 years; n = 1993) and older adult survivors (70+ years; n = 1922). Causal attributions were assessed in a single free-text item from the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire and psychological distress measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: AYA survivors most often attributed their CRC to heredity (36.4%), lifestyle (14.5%) and chance (10.9%). AYA survivors attributed their CRC to these causes more frequently than middle-aged and older adult CRC survivors. AYA survivors who attributed their CRC to causes out of their control (chance, heredity) showed significantly lower mean scores on anxiety (4.3 vs. 5.6; p < 0.01) compared to AYAs who reported causes within their control (lifestyle, stress). No significant difference was found for depression. CONCLUSION: AYA patients with CRC may benefit from in-depth discussion about the lack of known (biological) causes and how this does not directly imply a lifestyle or stress cause.