Breaking habits: safety and efficacy of elective electrocardioversion of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in the setting of day hospital

Aim To examine safety and efficiency of electrocardioversion (EC) in elective treatment of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in the setting of Day Hospital by determining success rate, frequency of adverse events and possible cost benefit compared to admitting a patient into hospital. Methods This prospective observational cohort study was performed in Day Hospital and in Intensive Care Department of Internal Medicine Clinic, University Clinical Centre Tuzla from January 2019 to December 2022 and included 98 patients with a persistent form of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter. The patients who were divided in two groups, 56 hospitalized and 42 patients accessed in Day Hospital. In all patients, medical history, physical examination, electrocardiogram (ECG) and transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) evaluation was performed in addition to laboratory findings. Electrocardioversion was performed with a monophasic General Electric defibrillator in anterolateral electrode position with up to three repetitive shocks. Results In hospital setting group overall succes rate of electrocardioversion was 85%, with average 2.1 EC attemps, there was with one fatal outcome due to stroke, one case of ventricular fibrillation (VF) due to human error, and 6 minor adverse events; with average cost of was 1408.70 KM (720.23 €) per patient. In Day Hospital setting succes rate was 88%, with average 2 EC attempts, no major adverse events, 8 minor adverse events; and average cost was of 127.23 KM (65.05 €) per patient. Conclusion Performing elective electrocardioversion in Day Hospital setting is as safe as admitting patients into hospital but substantially more cost effective.

The benefits of GLP1 receptors in cardiovascular diseases

Glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are well established drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). In addition to glycemic control, GLP-1 receptor agonists have beneficial other effects. They act by binding to GLP-1 receptors, which are widely distributed in the body, including cardiomyocytes and blood vessels. The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of GLP-1 receptor agonists impact on cardiovascular outcomes and risk reduction. In the last decade, several cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOT) have been conducted in order to explore cardiovascular benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists. CVOTs primarily proved cardiovascular safety and tolerability of different GLP-1 receptor agonists, but also showed cardiovascular benefit of specific drugs. CVOTs have shown that GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce MACE in patients with T2D compared to placebo. In addition, they have positive impact on several cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity by promoting weight loss, blood pressure and blood lipid levels. Also, they stimulate the endothelium to produce nitric oxide, reduce oxidative stress, and have antiatherogenic and antiinflammatory effects. Studies have shown their positive impact on kidney outcomes in patients with T2D compared to placebo. The results of previous trials are encouraging in terms of multiple positive effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists. However, further research is needed to understand their full potential and all details of their mechanism of action, which will enable to expand the therapeutic indications and to determine their optimal use in clinical practice.

LDL-C: The Only Causal Risk Factor for ASCVD. Why Is It Still Overlooked and Underestimated?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the most important causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). This article reviews why LDL-C remains overlooked and underestimated despite numerous studies that have proved its role.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently published EAS/ESC Guidelines for dyslipidemia and EAS Guidelines for prevention set new targets for LDL-C levels in primary and secondary prevention of ASCVD. These guidelines are based on data from large studies and meta-analyzes that have shown that lower LDL-C also means lower cardiovascular event rates. Real-life experience published in registries worldwide has shown us that the guidelines have not been translated to everyday clinical practice, meaning that a significant number of patients are undertreated and have LDL-C levels well above target. Potential reasons for the abovementioned are poor adherence and education of the patient and physician and health care system related factors. Implementation of the latest version of guidelines will require continuous patient and physicians education, as well as a shared decision-making process between physician and patient.