INTRODUCTION Large population-based observational trials have shown atrial fibrillation (AF) to be an independent risk factor for increased mortality. OBJECTIVE To examine all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality of patients with AF compared to corresponding mortality in general population of Serbia. METHODS This longitudinal observational study included patients with nonvalvular AF as the main indication for in-hospital and/or outpatient treatment at the Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade, during the period 1992-2007, if the latest date of the first diagnosed AF was early January 2003, so that the total follow-up could last at least 5 years (minimum 1 year prospectively), or until death. Patients with acute causes of AF, advanced left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF < or = 25%), preexcitation, known malignancy or any advanced chronic disease and patients with poorly documented history of previous AF were not included. To compare mortality of study population with mortality of general population, we used standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and chi-square test, p < 0.05. RESULTS Out of 1100 patients (389 females, 35.4%), aged 52.7 +/- 12.2 years, with total follow-up 9.94 +/- 6.05 years (prospective 5.75 +/- 4.28, retrospective 4.21 +/- 5.51), 40% had no underlying disease; others most frequently had arterial hypertension. AF was paroxysmal in 665 (60.5%), persistent in 225 (20.5%) and permanent in 210 patients (19.1%). Newly diagnosed AF was documented in 1058 patients (96.2%). Until the end of the study, 85 patients died (7.7%). Cardiovascular death was noted in 62 patients (72.9%), most frequently in form of sudden death (27/85, 31.7%), death from congestive heart failure (18/85, 21.2%) and stroke (14/85, 16.5%). Most patients (67/85, 78.8%) had AF at the time of death. SMR for all-cause mortality was 2.43 (p < 0.0001) and for cardiovascular mortality 3.03 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION All-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality of AF patients are higher than corresponding mortality in general population of Serbia, despite active treatment.

BACKGROUND/AIM Chronic sinusitis is a disease characterized with mucosal inflammation of nasal and paranasal sinuses for at least 12 weeks. In order to assess the extent and severity of inflammatory changes in paranasal sinuses CT score according to Lund-Mackay is the most commonly used. Recent studies show the possibility of existing different subtipes of chronic rhinosinusitis, pointing out the presence of nasal polyps and their influence on the severity of chronic rhinosinusitis. The aim of this research was to examine the influence of sinonasal polyposis on the extensity of inflammatory changes on computerized tomography (CT), evaluated by the Lund-Mackay CT score. METHODS A prospective study compared the Lund-Mackay CT score values between the patients with chronic rhinosinusitis associated with nasal polyps and those without them. We determined mean values of the total CT score in both groups of the patients, as well as mean values of CT score for each group of sinuses and ostiomeatal complexes. RESULTS The study included 90 patients, 47 males and 43 females, 45-year old on average, diagnosed with chronic rhinosinusitis on the basis of diagnostic algorithm. The group with uncomplicated chronic rhinosinusitis (without nasal polyps) consisted of 30 patients and the group with complicated chronic rhinosinusitis (with nasal polyps) of 60 patients. Observing these two groups of patients revealed statistically highly important intergroup difference in CT score for each group of sinuses and ostiomeatal complexes. The mean value of total CT score in the group with uncomplicated chronic rhinosinusitis was 4.37 while in the group with complicated chronic rhinosinusitis it was 16.05 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION Chronic rhinosinusitis complicated by sinonasal polyposis is characterized with more extensive inflammatory changes on CT and, consequently, with higher CT score for each group of sinuses and ostiomeatal complexes, as well as higher total CT score.

Summary Introduction: XXII European Congress of Medical Informatics (MIe 2009) took place in Sarajevo from August 30th to September 2nd 2009. Assessment of quality of papers presented at MIe 2009 was a process of observation, measurement, comparison and evaluation of the quality of orally presented papers. Methodology: For this study, and for the first time since EFMI founding (1976) and MIE congresses, the authors introduced a specially created quality assessment form with five relevant paper quality variables (methodological approach, international influence, scientific content, language quality, technical features) which the first author of this article used in peer-review process of papers submitted for publication in the journal Acta Informatica Medica (as Editor-in-Chief for last 18 years). The survey was conducted on the principle of random sampling of participants of MIE 2009 Conference in Sarajevo, where specially trained interviewers (final year students of medicine and engineering at the University of Sarajevo) interviewed 33 session’s chairs and 110 participants/listeners of MIE 2009 paper presentations in 33 sessions (of total 40). Data was collected, entered into a specially created database, analyzed and presented. Results: From the total of 150 oral presentations at the MIE 2009, 110 oral presentations were graded by both chairs and participants/ listeners. Grading results were compared and we found that in 60% of cases (66 papers) session chairs gave higher ratings than other participants of the congress. The highest rating was 10, and the lowest 3. Only 3 of the papers received all four grades 10 from the session chairs. The most common grade given by chairs of the session was 8 (26.36%), followed by 7 (20%), 9 (19.32%), 6 (13.18%), 10 and 5 (7.50%), 4 (5%) and 3 (1.14%). Significant differences in quality assessment of papers done by chairs and those done by other participants/listeners are observed. Conclusion: This work should demonstrate the importance of introducing universal (uniform) scale for assessment of articles at conferences that would provide objective and relevant assessment, which has not been the practice. Results obtained using a single standardized scale can be compared to each other and thus improve the quality of the articles and the congress. Future congresses can be organized in this manner and become leading events in certain fields of medical science.