Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction. REGION-MI - Russian Registry of Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Aim      To study features of diagnosis and treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Russian hospitals, results of the treatment, and early and late outcomes (6 and 12 months after AMI diagnosis); to evaluate the consistence of the treatment with clinical guidelines; and to evaluate patients' compliance with the treatment.Material and methods  The program was designed for 3 years, including 24 months for recruitment of patients to the study. The study will include 10, 000 patients hospitalized with a confirmed diagnosis (I21 according to ICD-10) of ST segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (MI) (STEMI) or non-ST segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) based on criteria of the European Society of Cardiology Guidelines on Forth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (2018). The follow-up period was divided into three stages: observation during the stay in the hospital and at 6 and 12 months following inclusion into the registry. The primary endpoint included cardiac death, nonfatal MI during the hospitalization and after one-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints were 6-months and one-year incidence of repeated MI, heart failure, ischemic stroke, clinically significant hemorrhage, unscheduled revascularization after discharge from the hospital, and the proportion of patients who continue on statins, antiplatelet drugs, and drugs of other groups for 6 months and 1 year.Results The inclusion of patients into the registry started in 2020 and will continue for 24 months. By the time of the article publication (June, 2021), more than 2,000 patients will be included.Conclusion      REGION-MI (Russian rEGIstry Of acute myocardial iNfarction) is a multicenter, retrospective and prospective observational cohort study that excludes any interference with the clinical practice. Results of the registry will help to analyze a real picture of medical care provided to patients with myocardial infarction and to schedule ways to improve the situation.

[Multicentre study of comparative efficacy of meropenem and combined regimens for empirical antibacterial therapy of severe nosocomial infections: results of clinical and pharmacoeconomic analysis].

Adequacy and effectiveness of empirical antibacterial therapy of severe nosocomial infections with meropenem vs. combined regimens of antibacterial therapy were investigated and the ratio of the cost and effectiveness of the compared regimens was evaluated. A prospective, randomized, open, comparative study of two initiative regimens of empirical antibacterial therapy of severe nosocomial infections was performed: meropenem in a daily dose of 1.5-3 g and the standard regimen with the use of betalactams and fluoroquinolones in combination with aminoglycosides and/or metronidazole. Patients with recorded diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonia (including the ventilator-associated one) or abdominal infection with the signs of severe sepsis and severity of APACHE II > 14 were enrolled. The patients were stratified into 2 groups subject to the disease severity, i.e. APACHE II 15-20 and APACHE II 21-25. One hundred thirty five out of 166 patients with recorded nosocomial infection were included into the final estimate of the therapy adequacy and effectiveness (Protocol Analysis): 62 patients were treated with meropenem and in the treatment of 73 patients the standard antibacterial therapy was used. In the group of the patients treated with meropenem there were stated significantly higher clinical effectiveness (recovery in 80.6% of the patients vs. the control of 46.6%, p < 0.01) and pathogen eradication (89.6 and 48.1% respectively, p < 0.01). The difference in the clinical and bacteriological effectiveness of meropenem and the standard therapy was more evident in the subgroups of more severe patients (APACHE > 20). With the use of meropenem the probability of recovery from nosocomial infection was significantly higher (RR 1.73-1.94, p < 0.001) vs. the control. Meropenem provided significantly higher eradication of the pathogens: P. aeruginosa (88 and 40% respectively, p = 0.007), E. coli (100 and 46.7%, p = 0.003), Acinetobacter spp. (90.9 and 40%, p = 0.02). The antibacterial therapy with the use of meropenem was assessed as adequate in 51 out of 56 patients (91.1%), that was 3 times as frequent as with the use of the standard antibacterial therapy (33.9%). The cost-effectiveness coefficient with the use of meropenem was 2.2 times lower vs. the control. Therefore, the empirical therapy of severe nosocomial infections with meropenem proved to be more adequate and from the economic viewpoint more advantageous vs. the standard combined regimens of antibacterial therapy, that was evident from significantly higher clinical and bacteriological efficacy of the treatment and decrease of the terms of the patients hospitalization in intensive care units (on the average by 5 days).