Aims: Virtual reality hypnosis (VRH) has been used successfully in various clinical settings to decrease anxiety and the sensation of pain. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of VRH in patients undergoing electrophysiology and pacing procedures under conscious sedation. Methods: During a two-month period, VRH support was proposed and accepted by 25 patients undergoing electrophysiological procedures. Data were compared with a control group (n = 61) enrolled during the following three-month period. Both groups underwent the measurement of the duration of intervention, the consumption of analgesics and hypnotics, and their pain and comfort using a validated visual analogue scale (VAS 0−10). Results: The baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups, including age. There were no differences in procedure duration (46 (±29) vs. 56 (±32) min, p = 0.18) or in hypnotic/antalgic consumption (midazolam 1.95 (±1.44) vs. 2.00 (±1.22) mg, p = 0.83; sufentanyl 3.78 (±2.87) vs. 3.58 (±2.48) μg, p = 0.9) between the control and VRH groups. In a multivariate analysis, the use of VRH was independently associated with lower comfort during the procedure assessed by postoperative visual analogue scale (OR 15.00 [95% CI 4.77−47.16], p < 0.01). There was no influence of VRH use on pain or drug consumption. Conclusions: In our experience, compared with VRH, human care is preferable during procedures in electrophysiology lab to improve the comfort of the patient. VRH has no influence on pain or drug consumption.

Background: Beta blockers (BBs) are a cornerstone for patients with heart failure (HF) and ventricular dysfunction. However, their use in patients recovering from a cardiogenic shock (CS) remains a bone of contention, especially regarding whether and when to reintroduce this class of drugs. Methods: FRENSHOCK is a prospective multicenter registry including 772 CS patients from 49 centers. Our aim was to compare outcomes (1-month and 1-year all-cause mortality) between CS patients taking and those not taking BBs in three scenarios: (1) at 24 h after CS; (2) patients who did or did not discontinue BBs within 24 h; and (3) patients who did or did not undergo the early introduction of BBs. Results: Among the 693 CS included, at 24 h after the CS event, 95 patients (13.7%) were taking BB, while 598 (86.3%) were not. Between the groups, there were no differences in terms of major comorbidities or initial CS triggers. Patients receiving BBs at 24 h presented a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality both at 1 month (aHR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.1, p = 0.10) and 1 year, which was, in both cases, not significant. Compared with patients who discontinued BBs at 24 h, patients who did not discontinue BBs showed lower 1-month mortality (aHR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.92, p = 0.03) and a trend to lower 1-year mortality. No reduction in outcomes was observed in patients who underwent an early introduction of BB therapy. Conclusions: BBs are drugs of first choice in patients with HF and should also be considered early in patients with CS. In contrast, the discontinuation of BB therapy resulted in increased 1-month all-cause mortality and a trend toward increased 1-year all-cause mortality.

Medical therapy for secondary prevention is known to be under-used in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Few data are available on the subgroup with critical limb ischemia (CLI). Prescription of cardiovascular preventive therapies was recorded at discharge in a large, prospective cohort of patients admitted for treatment of CLI and foot lesions, stratified for coronary artery disease (CAD) diagnosis. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). 618 patients were observed for a median follow-up of 981 days. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, statins, beta-blockers, and antithrombotic drugs were prescribed in 52%, 80%, 51%, and 99% of patients, respectively. However, only 43% of patients received optimal medical therapy (OMT), defined as the combination of RAAS inhibitor plus statin plus at least one antithrombotic drug. It was observed that the prescription of OMT was not affected by the presence of a CAD diagnosis. On the other hand, it was noticed that the renal function affected the prescription of OMT. OMT was independently associated with MACE (HR 0.688, 95%CI 0.475-0.995, P = .047) and, after propensity matching, also with all-cause mortality (HR 0.626, 95%CI 0.409-0.958, P = .031). Beta-blockers prescription was not associated with any outcome. In conclusion, patients with critical limb ischemia are under-treated with cardiovascular preventive therapies, irrespective of a CAD diagnosis. This has consequences on their prognosis.

Background. His bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as an alternative site to right ventricular pacing (RVP) with encouraging outcomes. To date, no study has investigated the systematic approach of three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (3D-EAM) to guide HBP implantation and to evaluate myocardial activation timing. Furthermore, studies reporting a comprehensive assessment of the ventricular function, using myocardial work (MW) evaluation are lacking. Objectives. (1) To evaluate the systematic use of the 3D-EAM as a guide to HBP; (2) to assess the electrical and mechanical activations with high-density mapping, comparing spontaneous ventricular activation (SVA), HBP and RVP; (3) to assess the myocardial function through speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) and MW analysis in SVA, HBP and RVP. Methods. 3D-EAM was performed in consecutive patients undergoing HBP implantation with a low use of fluoroscopy. All patients were systematically evaluated with high-density mapping, MW and STE. Results. Fifteen patients were enrolled, of whom three had an implant failure (20%). RV activation time was not statistically different between SVA and HBP (103 vs. 104 ms, p = 0.969) but was significantly higher in RVP (133 ms, p = 0.011 vs. SVA and p = 0.001 vs HBP). Global constructive work was significantly lower during RVP (1191 mmHg%) than during SVA and HBP (1648 and 1505 mmHg%, p = 0.011 and p = 0.008, respectively) and did not differ between SVA and HBP (p = 0.075). Conclusions. 3D-EAM and MW evaluation showed that HBP was comparable to the physiological SVA in terms of activation time and cardiac performance. Compared to both SVA and HBP, RVP was associated with a worse activation timing and ventricular efficiency.

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) has been proven to be effective in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients soon after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. The aim of this study was to assess whether a WCD may shorten the length of an initial hospital stay (total length, days in the intensive care unit (ICU) and in the acute cardiac care unit (ACCU)) among these patients. This was a single-centre, retrospective observational study of patients referred for the management of SCD risk post-AMI and LVEF ≤35%, in a tertiary care hospital. The clinical characteristics and length of index hospitalization of the group of patients discharged, with or without WCD, were compared. A propensity score analysis was performed, then weighted regression models were conducted. A total of 101 patients in the WCD group and 29 in the control group were enrolled in the analysis. In the weighted regression models, WCD significantly reduced the days spent in ACCU (p < 0.001). WCD patients had significantly fewer days spent in ACCU (5.5 ± 2.6 vs. 8.4 ± 12.8 days, p < 0.001) and shorter hospitalizations (10.2 ± 5.7 vs. 13.4 ± 17.6 days, p = 0.005), compared with the control group. It was concluded that the WCD appears to reduce the total length of hospitalization and lengths of stay in ACCU for patients post-AMI and with left ventricular dysfunction.