Evaluation of the Appropriateness of Pacemaker Mode Selection in Bradycardia Pacing:

The gap between practice and guidelines in the choice of first-line disease modifying antirheumatic drug in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from the ESPOIR cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare rheumatologists' prescription for first disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-life settings with 2 clinical practice guidelines (CPG), the French Society of Rheumatology/STPR 2004 and EULAR/ESCISIT 2007, and thus assess the gap between practices and guidelines. Method. ESPOIR was a French multicenter cohort study of 813 patients with early arthritis between 2002 and 2005. "Definite" and "probable" RA were defined according to ACR criteria and the level of diagnostic certainty. The objectives were to assess conformity between the observed first-line DMARD prescribed for those patients and the DMARD recommended in the guidelines; and to conduct a mail survey of patients' usual rheumatologists to investigate the reasons for their nonconformity with guidelines.

RESULTS

In total 627 patients with definite or probable RA were identified. Conformity rates were 58% for STPR guidelines and 54% for EULAR guidelines. At 6 months, 83 (34%) patients with early RA did not receive any DMARD. Main determinants associated with conformity to guidelines were disease activity and presence of severity-predictive factors. The main reason leading to a discrepancy between guidelines and daily practice appeared to be diagnostic uncertainty, i.e., the difficulty to reliably assess RA diagnosis as early as the first visits to the rheumatologist.

CONCLUSION

There is a substantial gap between CPG and rheumatologists' daily practice concerning the first DMARD to prescribe in early RA. This is explained mainly by diagnostic uncertainty. More attention should be paid in future guidelines to the diagnostic difficulties of early RA.

Is a Dual-Sensor Pacemaker Appropriate in Patients with Sino-Atrial Disease? Results from the DUSISLOG Study

BACKGROUND

Rate-responsive pacemakers (PMs) are often supplied with accelerometer (XL) and minute ventilation (MV) sensors to provide a physiologic rate response according to patient needs. No information is available about the real benefit of dual-sensor rate-responsive pacing on the daily life of patients.

METHODS

DUSISLOG (Dual Sensor vs Single Sensor comparison using patient activity LOGbook) is a two-arm prospective, randomized, multicenter study that enrolled 105 patients who received a rate-responsive PM (Insignia), Guidant Corp.). After 1 month of DDD pacing at 60 ppm lower rate, a single sensor (XL or MV, randomized) was activated for 3 months at the manufacturer's suggested nominal settings, followed by a 3-month period with dual sensors optimized with automatic response. During the last month of each period, the following data concerning patient physical activity were retrieved from PM diagnostics (Activity Log): mean percentage of physical activity, mean intensity of activity. Quality of life (QoL) scores and 6-minute walk test (WT) were also recorded.

RESULTS

Single-sensor rate-responsive pacing resulted in symptomatic benefit equally with XL and MV sensors while no additional benefit was found using dual sensor. In a subgroup analysis, patients (17%) with marked chronotropic incompetence and with 0% atrial sensing received benefits from single sensor with an additional advantage from sensor (QoL: +21 +/- 14% P < 0.05; WT: +17 +/- 7% P < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In most patients with rate-responsive devices, a single sensor is sufficient to achieve a satisfactory rate response. A dual sensor combination and optimization provides an additional benefit only in a selected population with an advanced atrial chronotropic disease.