Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39315892

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) treatment is based on risk stratification according to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. However, emerging therapies in acute PE may require a more granular risk classification. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to propose a new RIsk claSsification Adapting the SCAI shock stages to right ventricular failure due to acute PE (RISA-PE). METHODS: This registry included consecutive intermediate-high risk (IHR) or high-risk (HR)-PE patients selected for catheter-directed interventions (CDI) from 2018 to 2023 in 15 Spanish centers (NCT06348459). Patients were grouped according to RISA-PE classification as A (right ventricular dysfunction and troponin elevation); B (A + serum lactate >2 mmol/L OR shock index ≥1); C (persistent hypotension); D (obstructive shock); and E (cardiac arrest). In-hospital adverse events were assessed to evaluate RISA-PE performance. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were included (age 62.1±15.2 years, 55.7% males). The incidence of in-hospital all-cause death was progressively higher with increasing RISA-PE stage (1.2%, 6.4%, 19.0%, 25.6%, and 57.7% for stages A, B, C, D, and E, respectively, P value for linear trend<0.001). However, using the ESC classification, there was an abrupt difference between IHR- and HR-PE patients regarding mortality (4.3% vs. 29.3%, P<0.001). The incidence of in-hospital major bleeding and acute kidney injury followed a similar pattern. CONCLUSIONS: The user-friendly RISA-PE classification may improve the granularity in stratifying PE patients' risk and warrants evaluation in larger studies with different therapeutic approaches in order to detect its utility as a decision-making scale.

2.
Cardiovasc Revasc Med ; 21(4): 508-513, 2020 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31401071

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the efficacy of the drug-coated balloon (DCB) ESSENTIAL for the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: DCBs have proven a valid therapeutic option for the management of ISR in several clinical trials, yet no class effect can be claimed. Accordingly, every new DCB model has to be individually evaluated through clinical studies. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter study including consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR with the ESSENTIAL DCB. A 6-month quantitative coronary angiography (QCA)/optical coherence tomography (OCT) follow-up was scheduled. The primary endpoint was OCT-derived in-segment maximal area stenosis. Secondary endpoints included QCA-derived in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) and target lesion failure (TLF) rates at 6, 12, and 24 months. TLF was defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients were successfully treated with DCB, with 67% of ISR corresponding to drug-eluting stents (DES). At 6 months, 26 patients underwent the scheduled angiographic follow-up. The mean value for in-segment maximal area stenosis was 51.4 ±â€¯13% and the median value was 53% (IQR 46.4-59.5). In the DES-ISR subgroup, these parameters were 52.6 ±â€¯10% and 55.2% (IQR 49.3-58.5), respectively. In-segment LLL was 0.25 ±â€¯0.43 mm with only 2 (7.7%) patients showing binary restenosis (>50%). The incidence of TLF was 10% at 6 months, 13.3% at 12 months, and 13.3% at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the ESSENTIAL DCB showed sustained efficacy in the prevention of recurrent restenosis after treatment of ISR. SUMMARY: We sought to assess the efficacy of the drug-coated balloon ESSENTIAL for the treatment of in-stent restenosis through a prospective, multicenter study including QCA and OCT assessment at 6-month follow-up. The primary endpoint was in-segment maximal area stenosis. Among the 31 patients successfully treated with the ESSENTIAL DCB, an angiographic follow-up was conducted in 26. Mean in-segment maximal area stenosis was 51.4 ±â€¯13% and the median value was 53% (IQR 46.4-59.5). In the DES-ISR subgroup, corresponding values were 52.6 ±â€¯10% and 55.2% (IQR 49.3-58.5), respectively. The observed in-segment LLL was 0.25 ±â€¯0.43 mm and binary restenosis rate was 7.7%. TLF was 10% at 6 months and 13.3% at 12 and 24 months.


Asunto(s)
Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Angiografía Coronaria , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Reestenosis Coronaria/terapia , Vasos Coronarios/diagnóstico por imagen , Paclitaxel/administración & dosificación , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/instrumentación , Stents , Tomografía de Coherencia Óptica , Anciano , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/mortalidad , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/mortalidad , Reestenosis Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Reestenosis Coronaria/etiología , Reestenosis Coronaria/mortalidad , Diseño de Equipo , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Paclitaxel/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/mortalidad , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , España , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA