Efficacy of intravenous magnesium for the management of non-post operative atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous magnesium (IV Mg), a commonly utilized therapeutic agent in the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) with rapid ventricular response, is thought to exert its influence via its effect on cellular automaticity and prolongation of atrial and atrioventricular nodal refractoriness thus reducing ventricular rate. We sought to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of IV Mg versus placebo in addition to standard pharmacotherapy in the rate and rhythm control of AF in the nonpostoperative patient cohort given that randomized control trials (RCTs) have shown conflicting results. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing IV Mg versus placebo in addition to standard of care were identified via electronic database searches. Nine RCTs were returned with a total of 1048 patients. Primary efficacy endpoints were study-defined rate control and rhythm control/reversion to sinus rhythm. The secondary endpoint was patient experienced side effects. RESULTS: Our analysis found IV Mg in addition to standard care was successful in achieving rate control (odd ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-3.11, p = .02) and rhythm control (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.04-2.03, p = .03). Although not well reported among studies, there was no significant difference between groups regarding the likelihood of experiencing side effects. CONCLUSIONS: IV Mg, in addition to standard-of-care pharmacotherapy, increases the rates of successful rate and rhythm control in nonpostoperative patients with AF with rapid ventricular response and is well tolerated.

Development of a carpark cardiac implantable electronic device clinic to improve time efficiency and patient satisfaction in the context of restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated time efficiency and patient satisfaction of a "car park clinic" (CPC) compared to traditional face-to-face (F2F) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Consecutive patients attending CPC between September 2020 and November 2021 were surveyed. CPC time was recorded by staff. F2F time was reported by patients and administrative data. RESULTS: A total of 591 patients attended the CPC. A total of 176 responses were collected for F2F clinic. Regarding satisfaction, 90% of CPC patients responded "happy" or "very happy." 96% reported feeling "safe" or "very safe." Patients spent significantly less time in CPC compared to F2F (17 ± 8 vs. 50 ± 24 min, p < .001). CONCLUSION: CPC had excellent patient satisfaction and superior time efficiency compared to F2F.

Evaluating the benefits of a rapid access chest pain clinic in Australia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes and safety of a rapid access chest pain clinic (RACPC) in Australia with those of a general cardiology clinic. DESIGN: Prospective comparison of the outcomes for patients attending an RACPC and those of historical controls. SETTING: Royal Hobart Hospital cardiology outpatient department. PARTICIPANTS: 1914 patients referred for outpatient evaluation of new onset chest pain (1479 patients seen in the RACPC, 435 patients previously seen in the general cardiology clinic). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Service outcomes (review times, number of clinic reviews); adverse events (unplanned emergency department re-attendances at 30 days and 12 months; major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months, including unplanned revascularisation, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, cardiac death). RESULTS: Median time to review was shorter for RACPC than for usual care patients (12 days [IQR, 8-15 days] v 45 days [IQR, 27-89 days]). All patients seen in the RACPC received a diagnosis at the first clinic visit, but only 139 patients in the usual care group (32.0%). There were fewer unplanned emergency department re-attendances for patients in the RACPC group at 30 days (1.6% v 4.4%) and 12 months (5.7% v 12.9%) than in the control group. Major adverse cardiovascular events were less frequent among patients evaluated in the RACPC (0.2% v 1.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were evaluated more efficiently in the RACPC than in a traditional cardiology clinic, and their subsequent rates of emergency department re-attendances and adverse cardiovascular events were lower.