ABSTRACT
A prospective multicenter study including 1410 chest pain patients with suspected acute coronary syndromes was carried out to examine the predictive value of biological cardiac markers for adverse events measured by a point-of-care system. Admission cardiac troponin T (cTnT) and myoglobin were measured in parallel on a point-of-care system in the emergency department and -- together with CK-MB mass -- on lab analyzers. In a one-year follow-up, cardiac and non-cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris and need for revascularization were registered. Median time between onset of symptoms and admission was 285 min; 172 patients (12.2%) had no event during follow-up. If the cTnT, measured either by the point-of-care system or a conventional lab analyzer, was >0.05 microg/L, then the chance of a cardiac event during the follow-up period was doubled (18% vs. 9%). Serial cTnT measurement did not add any further value to the predictive power of the admission cTnT. Myoglobin and CK-MB mass identified increasing risk with increasing concentration quartiles; cardiac event rates were 2.8- to 4.4-fold higher between the quartiles with the lowest and those with the highest analyte concentration, respectively. There was no difference in non-cardiac death rates between any concentration quartiles. In conclusion, the prediction of clinical events by cardiac troponin T and myoglobin measured with a point-of-care analyzer in the emergency department was as good as that of the same cardiac markers and CK-MB mass measured on lab analyzers.
Subject(s)
Chest Pain , Emergency Service, Hospital , Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , Myoglobin/blood , Point-of-Care Systems , Troponin T/blood , Aged , Creatine Kinase, MB Form/blood , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/blood , Risk Assessment , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
Hypertension is a major cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, and blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment substantially reduces the risk. This review compares the available clinical evidence from the BP-lowering and CV-outcome studies of telmisartan and perindopril, which are among the most intensively studied members of their respective classes. The PubMed database was searched for telmisartan and perindopril publications meeting the following criteria: 1) head-to-head comparison trials for BP lowering; and 2) CV-outcome studies (ie, ones with a CV event, mortality, or hospitalization outcome) in patients with CV risk factors but without heart failure. In comparative trials, telmisartan treatment resulted in significantly higher reduction in trough BP and mean ambulatory diastolic BP for the last 8 hours of the dosing interval compared with perindopril. In mainly placebo-controlled CV-outcome studies in patients with hypertension, CV benefits with perindopril were associated with large reductions in BP. There were no CV outcome studies with telmisartan in patients with hypertension. The beyond-BP-lowering CV-protective benefits of telmisartan were demonstrated in the active-controlled ONTARGET (ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial) trial, which included patients with controlled BP at baseline. In general, the trials discussed in this review reinforce the fact that perindopril and telmisartan are two long-acting antihypertensive drugs that reduce BP over 24 hours, and are the best-evidenced drugs in their class with proven CV protection. It is also clear that the benefits are not a "class effect", and vary between the different drugs within each class. Hence, the best approach for treatments tailored to individual patient needs should be evidence-based specific drugs, rather than a drug-class recommendation for achieving therapeutic targets.