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.     

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。     

Outcomes of Incidental Lung Nodules With Structured Recommendations and Electronic Tracking

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of structured recommendations on follow-up completion for incidental lung nodules (ILNs).MethodsPatients with ILNs before and after implementation of structured Fleischner recommendations and electronic tracking were sampled randomly. The cohorts were compared for imaging follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess appropriate follow-up and loss to follow-up, with independent variables including use of structured recommendations or tracking, age, sex, race, ethnicity, setting of the index test (inpatient, outpatient, emergency department), smoking history, and nodule features.ResultsIn all, 1,301 patients met final inclusion criteria, including 255 patients before and 1,046 patients after structured recommendations or tracking. Baseline differences were found in the pre- and postintervention groups, with smaller ILNs and younger age after implementing structured recommendations. Comparing pre- versus postintervention outcomes, 40.0% (100 of 250) versus 29.5% (309 of 1,046) of patients had no follow-up despite Fleischner indications for imaging (P = .002), and among the remaining patients, 56.6% (82 of 145) versus 75.0% (553 of 737) followed up on time (P < .001). Delayed follow-up was more frequent before intervention. Differences postintervention were mostly accounted for by nodules ≤8 mm in the outpatient setting (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, younger age, White race, outpatient setting, and larger nodule size showed significant association with appropriate follow-up completion (P < .015), but structured recommendations did not. Similar results applied for loss to follow-up.DiscussionConsistent use of structured reporting is likely key to mitigate selection bias when benchmarking rates of appropriate follow-up of ILN. Emergency department patients and inpatients are at high risk of missed or delayed follow-up despite structured recommendations.