Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
ESC Heart Fail ; 10(6): 3430-3437, 2023 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37705397

RESUMO

AIMS: The long-term effect of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) remains uncertain in patients who have experienced improvements in left ventricular (LV) systolic function or significant LV reverse remodelling following a certain period of treatment. It is also unclear how ARNI performs in patients who have not shown these improvements. This study aimed to assess the impact of prolonged ARNI use compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with and without significant treatment response after 1 year of heart failure (HF) treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study enrolled patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who were treated with either ARNI or ACEIs/ARBs within 1 year of undergoing index echocardiography. After 1 year of treatment, patients were reclassified into the following groups: (i) patients with HF with improved ejection fraction and persistent HFrEF and (ii) patients with and without LV reverse remodelling based on the follow-up echocardiography. The effect of ARNI versus that of ACEIs/ARBs in each group was assessed from the time of categorizing into new groups using the composite event of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization. A total of 671 patients with HFrEF (age, 66.4 ± 14.1 years; males, 66.8%) were included, and 133 (19.8%) composite events of death and rehospitalization for HF were observed during the follow-up (median follow-up, 44 [interquartile range, 34-51] months). ARNI had a significantly lower event rate than ACEIs/ARBs in patients with HF with improved ejection fraction (7.0% vs. 30.4%, P = 0.020) and those with persistent HFrEF (17.6% vs. 49.7%, P < 0.001). Irrespective of whether patients exhibited LV reverse remodelling (15.8% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.001) or not (15.0% vs. 54.9%, P < 0.001), ARNIs were associated with a significantly lower event rate than ACEIs/ARBs. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of significant treatment response measured by either LVEF or LV reverse remodelling after 1 year of treatment, the extended utilization of ARNI demonstrated a more favourable prognosis than that of ACEIs/ARBs in patients with HFrEF.


Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Masculino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Neprilisina , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Volume Sistólico/fisiologia , Anti-Hipertensivos
2.
Coron Artery Dis ; 31(1): 9-17, 2022 01 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34569990

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: It remains uncertain whether intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) use and final kissing balloon (FKB) dilatation would be standard care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a simple 1-stent technique in unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis. This study sought to investigate the impact of IVUS use and FKB dilatation on long-term major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) in PCI with a simple 1-stent technique for unprotected LMCA stenosis. METHODS: Between June 2006 and December 2012, 255 patients who underwent PCI with 1 drug-eluting stent for LMCA stenosis were analyzed. Mean follow-up duration was 1663 ± 946 days. Long-term MACEs were defined as death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat revascularizations. RESULTS: During the follow-up, 72 (28.2%) MACEs occurred including 38 (14.9%) deaths, 21 (8.2%) nonfatal MIs and 13 (5.1%) revascularizations. The IVUS examination and FKB dilatation were done in 158 (62.0%) and 119 (46.7%), respectively. IVUS use (20.3 versus 41.2%; log-rank P < 0.001), not FKB dilatation (30.3 versus 26.5%; log-rank P = 0.614), significantly reduced MACEs. In multivariate analysis, IVUS use was a negative predictor of MACEs [hazards ratio 0.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.88; P = 0.017], whereas FKB dilatation (hazard ratio 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.80; P = 0.047) was a positive predictor of MACEs. In bifurcation LMCA stenosis, IVUS use (18.7 versus 48.0%; log-rank P < 0.001) significantly reduced MACEs. In nonbifurcation LMCA stenosis, FKB dilatation showed a trend of increased MACEs (P = 0.076). CONCLUSION: IVUS examination is helpful in reducing clinical events in PCI for LMCA bifurcation lesions, whereas mandatory FKB dilatation after the 1-stent technique might be harmful in nonbifurcation LMCA stenosis.


Assuntos
Angioplastia Coronária com Balão/normas , Infarto do Miocárdio/mortalidade , Revascularização Miocárdica/normas , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/normas , Idoso , Angioplastia Coronária com Balão/métodos , Angioplastia Coronária com Balão/estatística & dados numéricos , Angiografia Coronária/métodos , Stents Farmacológicos/normas , Stents Farmacológicos/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/complicações , Infarto do Miocárdio/terapia , Revascularização Miocárdica/métodos , Revascularização Miocárdica/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Fatores de Risco , Resultado do Tratamento , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/métodos , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/estatística & dados numéricos
3.
J Korean Med Sci ; 36(2): e15, 2021 Jan 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33429474

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the association between preexisting cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and the outcomes of patients requiring hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the impact of preexisting CVRFs or CVDs on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a Korean healthcare system. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to 10 hospitals in Daegu Metropolitan City, Korea, were examined. All sequentially hospitalized patients between February 15, 2020, and April 24, 2020, were enrolled in this study. All patients were confirmed to have COVID-19 based on the positive results on the polymerase chain reaction testing of nasopharyngeal samples. Clinical outcomes during hospitalization, such as requiring intensive care and invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and death, were evaluated. Moreover, data on baseline comorbidities such as a history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, current smoking, heart failure, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic cardiac diseases were obtained. RESULTS: Of all the patients enrolled, 954 (42.0%) had preexisting CVRFs or CVDs. Among the CVRFs, the most common were hypertension (28.8%) and diabetes mellitus (17.0%). The prevalence rates of preexisting CVRFs or CVDs increased with age (P < 0.001). The number of patients requiring intensive care (P < 0.001) and invasive MV (P < 0.001) increased with age. The in-hospital death rate increased with age (P < 0.001). Patients requiring intensive care (5.3% vs. 1.6%; P < 0.001) and invasive MV (4.3% vs. 1.7%; P < 0.001) were significantly greater in patients with preexisting CVRFs or CVDs. In-hospital mortality (12.9% vs. 3.1%; P < 0.001) was significantly higher in patients with preexisting CVRFs or CVDs. Among the CVRFs, diabetes mellitus and hypertension were associated with increased requirement of intensive care and invasive MV and in-hospital death. Among the known CVDs, coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure were associated with invasive MV and in-hospital death. In multivariate analysis, preexisting CVRFs or CVDs (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-3.01; P = 0.027) were independent predictors of in-hospital death after adjusting for confounding variables. Among individual preexisting CVRF or CVD components, diabetes mellitus (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.51-3.90; P < 0.001) and congestive heart failure (OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.06-5.87; P = 0.049) were independent predictors of in-hospital death. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this study, the patients with confirmed COVID-19 with preexisting CVRFs or CVDs had worse clinical outcomes. Caution is required in dealing with these patients at triage.


Assuntos
COVID-19/complicações , COVID-19/mortalidade , Diabetes Mellitus/mortalidade , Hipertensão/mortalidade , Idoso , COVID-19/patologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/complicações , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Doenças Cardiovasculares/patologia , Comorbidade , Cuidados Críticos/estatística & dados numéricos , Diabetes Mellitus/patologia , Feminino , Fatores de Risco de Doenças Cardíacas , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Humanos , Hipertensão/patologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prognóstico , República da Coreia , SARS-CoV-2
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA