How can we optimize the processes of care for acute coronary syndromes to improve outcomes?

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS), either ST-elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-elevation ACS, are still one of the most common cardiac emergencies with substantial morbidity and mortality. The availability of evidence-based treatments, such as early and intense platelet inhibition and anticoagulation, and timely reperfusion and revascularization, has substantially improved outcomes in patients with ACS. The implementation of streamlined processes of care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation ACS over the last decade including both appropriate tools, especially cardiac troponin, for rapid diagnosis and risk stratification and for decision support, and the widespread availability of modern antithrombotic and interventional treatments, have reduced morbidity and mortality to unprecedented low levels. These changes in the process of care require a synchronized approach, and research using a team-based strategy and effective regional networks has allowed healthcare systems to provide modern treatments for most patients with ACS. There are still areas needing improvement, such as the delivery of care to people in rural areas or with delayed time to treatment.

Comparison of the safety between first- and second-generation drug eluting stents: meta-analysis from 19 randomized trials and 16,924 patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Despite the effectiveness of first generation drug eluting stent, DES-1 (Taxus and Cypher) in avoiding restenosis and the need for new revascularizations, a slightly increase in stent thrombosis, ST have been published. Second generation drug eluting stent, DES-2 has been developed to optimize the results of percutaneous coronary intervention in terms of efficacy and safety, for avoiding early and late ST. Our objective was to compare the risk of ST between DES-1 and DES-2. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of 19 randomized trials. Overall 16,924 patients; 7294 were allocated to DES-1 and 9630 were allocated to DES-2. The primary endpoint was to compare the risk of overall ST during the first year. Other clinical outcomes of interest were to compare the incidence of early (<1 month) and late ST (>1 month-<1 year). RESULTS: The incidence of overall ST was not increased in patients receiving DES-1 (1.13% DES-1 vs 0.75% DES-2, OR 0.79, 95% CI:0.45-1.40, p 0.43). There were no significant differences in the incidence of; early ST (0.85% DES-1 vs 0.53% DES-2, OR 0.68, 95% CI:0.31-1.51, p 0.35) and late ST (0.40% DES-1 vs 0.25% DES-2, OR 0.69, 95% CI:0.39-1.24, p 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year after stent implantation, we didn't found differences in ST between DES-1 and DES-2. Most of ST was produced under appropriate anti-platelet therapy so it is possible that many other factors such as; clopidogrel resistance, procedural complications or stent malapposition were implicated. Safety after longer follow-up (>1 year) remains unclear.

On the diagnosis of CADASIL.

Cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), a genetic arteriopathy related to Notch3 mutations, is difficult to diagnosis. The goal of this study was to determine the value of clinical, immunohistochemical, and molecular techniques for the diagnosis of CADASIL. Clinical features and the immunohistochemical and molecular findings in 200 subjects with suspected CADASIL in whom 93 biopsies and 190 molecular studies are reported. Eighteen pathogenic mutations of the Notch3 gene, six of them previously unreported, were detected in 67 patients. The clinical features did not permit differentiation between CADASIL and CADASIL-like syndromes. The sensitivity and specificity of the skin biopsies was 97.7% and 56.5%, respectively, but increased to 100% and 81.5%, respectively, in cases with proven family history. In conclusion, a clinical diagnosis of CADASIL is difficult to determine and confirmatory techniques should be used judiciously.