Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
2.
Am J Cardiol ; 125(1): 1-10, 2020 01 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31685213

RESUMEN

The benefit-risk ratio of a pharmacoinvasive strategy (PI) in patients ≥70 years of age with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains uncertain resulting in its limited use in this population. This study compared efficacy and safety of PI with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Data from 2,841 patients (mean age: 78.1 ± 5.6 years, female: 36.1%) included in a prospective multicenter registry, and who underwent either PI (n = 269) or pPCI (n = 2,572), were analyzed. The primary end point was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, and definite stent thrombosis. Secondary end points included all-cause death, major bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and the development of in-hospital Killip class III or IV heart failure. Propensity-score matching and conditional logistic regression were used to adjust for confounders. Within the matched cohort, rates of MACE was not statistically different between the PI (n = 247) and pPCI (n = 958) groups, (11.3% vs 9.0%, respectively, odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.94; p = 0.31). Secondary end points were comparable between groups at the exception of a lower rate of development of Killip class III or IV heart failure after PI. The rate of intracranial hemorrhage was significantly higher in the PI group (2.3% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, the present study demonstrated no difference regarding in-hospital MACE following PI or pPCI in STEMI patients ≥70 years of age. An adequately-powered randomized trial is needed to precisely define the role of PI in this high-risk subgroup.


Asunto(s)
Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Sistema de Registros , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/terapia , Terapia Trombolítica/normas , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Causas de Muerte/tendencias , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Francia/epidemiología , Mortalidad Hospitalaria/tendencias , Humanos , Masculino , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodos , Pronóstico , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/mortalidad , Tasa de Supervivencia/tendencias , Terapia Trombolítica/métodos , Tiempo de Tratamiento
3.
Arch Cardiovasc Dis ; 111(11): 656-665, 2018 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29229216

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Recent studies demonstrated the superiority of complete revascularization (CR) in patients treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). AIM: To evaluate whether immediate CR improves in-hospital outcomes in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease. METHODS: Data from a prospective multicentre registry including 9365 patients with STEMI were analysed. Patients with multivessel disease and treated with pPCI (n=3412) were included and separated into two groups according to whether immediate CR was performed during the index procedure. The primary endpoint was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke and definite stent thrombosis. Secondary endpoints were individual components of MACE and major bleeding. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity-score adjustment were performed to account for confounders. RESULTS: Immediate CR was performed in 98 patients (2.9%), whereas 3314 patients (97.1%) were incompletely revascularized. The prevalence of severe heart failure (Killip class III or IV) and significant lesions of the left main coronary artery were higher in the immediate CR group (21.6% vs. 13.5% and 24.5% vs. 6.7%, respectively; P<0.001 for both). After adjustment, immediate CR was not associated with reduced rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-1.35; P=0.24) or all-cause death (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.23-1.16; P=0.11), but with increased risks of definite stent thrombosis (HR: 3.93, 95% CI: 1.12-13.75; P=0.03) and major bleeding (HR: 17.46, 95% CI: 2.29-133.17; P=0.006). CONCLUSION: Immediate CR did not improve in-hospital outcomes of patients with STEMI with multivessel disease in this analysis. Randomized studies are warranted to elucidate the optimal timing of CR in patients with STEMI.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/cirugía , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/cirugía , Tiempo de Tratamiento , Anciano , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/mortalidad , Trombosis Coronaria/etiología , Femenino , Francia , Hemorragia/etiología , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/mortalidad , Recurrencia , Sistema de Registros , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/diagnóstico por imagen , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/mortalidad , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA