Is amiodarone still a reasonable therapeutic option for rhythm control in atrial fibrillation?

Amiodarone is the most potent antiarrhythmic drug available and is commonly prescribed to treat and prevent not only life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias but also atrial fibrillation (AF). The latest European Society of Cardiology AF guidelines state that amiodarone is recommended for long-term rhythm control in all AF patients but that other antiarrhythmic drugs should be considered first whenever possible, due to its extracardiac toxicity. In patients without significant or with only minimal structural heart disease, amiodarone is not listed as a possibility in their therapeutic scheme. Still, amiodarone is widely and liberally used, and is the most prescribed antiarrhythmic drug for patients with AF despite its high toxicity profile. Non-cardiovascular death was more frequent with amiodarone treatment than with a rate control strategy in AFFIRM, while meta-analyses suggest an association between amiodarone use in patients without structural heart disease and increased non-cardiovascular mortality. Severe or even fatal outcomes due to amiodarone may occur years after treatment initiation and are often not acknowledged by the prescribing physician, who may no longer be following the patient. The lack of widely accepted diagnostic criteria and symptom definitions may lead to underestimation of the incidence of severe side effects and of its toxicity. Unlike the underestimated risk of toxicity with amiodarone, severe complications associated with catheter ablation are usually directly ascribed to the treatment even by non-medical personnel, possibly resulting in overestimation of risks. This brief review will address the issue of amiodarone overuse and the frequent underestimation of its toxicity, while suggesting scenarios in which its use is entirely reasonable, and compare it with catheter ablation.     

Lipase elevation on admission predicts worse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19

Background and objectivesHyperlipasemia is highly prevalent among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of lipase activity, measured at the time of admission, on the clinical course and mortality in COVID-19 patients.MethodsThe population of this study comprised 12,139 patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 between June 2020 and June 2021 in a pandemic hospital. Of these, 8819 patients were excluded from the study due to missing data, four patients were excluded due to a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (according to the revised Atlanta criteria), and 72 patients were excluded due to alcohol use or having a history of chronic pancreatitis. The final study sample consisted of the remaining 3244 COVID-19 patients. Laboratory results, intensive care unit (ICU) follow-up periods, the need for mechanical ventilation, and mortality rates were compared between the normal lipase activity and high lipase activity groups.ResultsThere were 968 (29.8%) patients with high lipase activity at the time of admission. The rate of ICU admission was 36.1% vs. 9.9% (p < 0.001), mechanical ventilation requirement rates were 33.7% vs. 8.3% (p < 0.001), and mortality rates were as 24.6% vs. 6.4% (p < 0.001) in the high lipase activity group compared to the normal lipase activity group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that high lipase activity was an independent factor in predicting mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (odds ratio [OR]: 3.191, p < 0.001).ConclusionElevated lipase activity without acute pancreatitis at the time of admission in COVID-19 patients was determined as an independent predictor of poor prognosis.     

1例重型弥漫性轴索损伤伴肺挫裂伤患者的肺康复护理

总结1例重型弥漫性轴索损伤伴肺挫裂伤患者的肺康复护理经验。护理要点包括：组建多学科肺康复管理团队,实施个性化呼吸支持与降阶梯序贯氧疗护理,精准廓清呼吸道,开展一体化的早期肺功能康复锻炼。经过多学科团队合作,患者入院后第12天撤离呼吸机,第17天拔除气管插管,第20天下床活动,第37天顺利出院,随访6个月,患者恢复良好。