Echocardiography-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided temporary pacing in the emergency setting: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The insertion of a temporary pacemaker can be a lifesaving procedure in the emergency setting. OBJECTIVES: This is an observational monocentric study comparing echocardiography-guided temporary pacemaker via the right internal jugular vein to standard fluoroscopy-guided temporary pacemaker via the femoral vein; the procedure was tested for noninferiority. METHODS: Patients needing urgent pacing were consecutively enrolled. Primary efficacy endpoints were time to pacing and need for catheter replacement. Primary safety endpoint was a composite outcome of overall complications. RESULTS: One hundred and six patients (77 ± 10 years) were enrolled: 53 underwent echocardiographic-guided and 53 fluoroscopy-guided temporary pacemaker. Baseline characteristics of the two groups of treatment were similar. Time to pacing was shorter in the echocardiography-guided than in the fluoroscopy-guided group (439 ± 179 vs. 716 ± 235 s; P<0.0001; power 100%). During the pacing (54 ± 35 h), there was a higher incidence of pacemaker malfunction in the fluoroscopy-guided group [15 vs. 3 patients; odds ratio (OR) 6.5, confidence interval (CI) 95% 1.9-29.7, P<0.001; power 5.7%] and there was a significantly lower incidence of complications in the echocardiography-guided temporary pacemaker group (6 vs. 22 patients; OR 0.18, CI 95% 0.06-0.49, P<0.001; echocardiography-guided temporary pacemaker events rate 0.1929 vs. fluoroscopy-guided temporary pacemaker events rate 1.398 per 100 person-hours paced, P<0.0001). In the standard group there was one death attributable to a temporary pacemaker complication (sepsis). CONCLUSION: Echocardiography-guided temporary pacemaker is a well-tolerated procedure that could allow reliable insertion of a temporary pacemaker; therefore, it is a well-tolerated option in an emergency setting and in hospitals where fluoroscopy is not available.

Refractory acute decompensated heart failure: an observational study on a noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring system aimed at improving the therapeutic approach.

BACKGROUND: Inotropic agents should only be administered in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) refractory to vasodilators at optimal doses because they are associated with adverse outcome. In this setting a noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring system (NHMS) could be useful for optimizing treatment. INCLUSION CRITERIA: advanced chronic heart failure, ejection fraction 30% or less, admission for ADHF with systolic blood pressure 115 mmHg or less and inadequate response at 48 h of therapy. Patients were evaluated with a NHMS: with vascular systemic resistance (VSR) greater than 1500 dyne x s/cm we used vasodilators at increasing doses, with VSR less than 1500 and cardiac index (CI) less than 2.4 l/min per m inotropic agents were used. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 20 patients (mean age 67 + or - 12 years) with ejection fraction 20 + or - 7%. After 48 h of clinical-guided therapy, none of the patients achieved VSR 1500 or less, and 12 patients had a CI less than 2.4 l/min per m. After hemodynamic-guided therapeutic optimization there was a significant reduction of dyspnea at rest (7.7 + or - 1.25 versus 2.44 + or - 1.33 on the 10-point Likert scale, P < 0.001) and 'cold' presentation (12 patients before and 1 patient after, P = 0.0004). Daily urinary volume was higher (1217 + or - 369 versus 2260 + or - 797 ml, P = 0.001) without renal function deterioration (creatinine 1.56 + or - 0.52 versus 1.34 + or - 0.61 mg/dl, P = 0.012).The nitroprusside dosing was increased after NHMS (0.13 + or - 0.19 versus 0.4 + or - 0.310 microg/kg per min, P = 0.044), whereas doses of inotropic agents, diuretics and beta-blockers did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: In refractory ADHF a NHMS improves significantly symptoms and renal function, with a better use of vasodilators.