Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Interv Cardiol ; 18: e29, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38213747

RESUMEN

Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is associated with very poor clinical outcomes. An optimal pathway of care is yet to be defined, but prognostication is likely to assist in the challenging decision-making required for treatment of this high-risk patient cohort. The MIRACLE2 score provides a simple method of neuro-prognostication but as yet it has not been externally validated. The aim of this study was therefore to retrospectively apply the score to a cohort of OHCA patients to assess the predictive ability and accuracy in the identification of neurological outcome. Methods: Retrospective data of patients identified by hospital coding, over a period of 18 months, were collected from a large tertiary-level cardiac centre with a mature, multidisciplinary OHCA service. MIRACLE2 score performance was assessed against three existing OHCA prognostication scores. Results: Patients with all-comer OHCA, of presumed cardiac origin, with and without evidence of ST-elevation MI (43.4% versus 56.6%, respectively) were included. Regardless of presentation, the MIRACLE2 score performed well in neuro-prognostication, with a low MIRACLE2 score (≤2) providing a negative predictive value of 94% for poor neurological outcome at discharge, while a high score (≥5) had a positive predictive value of 95%. A high MIRACLE2 score performed well regardless of presenting ECG, with 91% of patients receiving early coronary angiography having a poor outcome. Conclusion: The MIRACLE2 score has good prognostic performance and is easily applicable to cardiac-origin OHCA presentation at the hospital front door. Prognostic scoring may assist decision-making regarding early angiographic assessment.

2.
Open Heart ; 5(1): e000767, 2018.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29765614

RESUMEN

Background: The evidence for benefits of bivalirudin over heparin has recently been challenged. We aimed to analyse the safety and cost-effectiveness following reintroduction of heparin instead of bivalirudin as the standard anticoagulation for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in a high-volume centre. Methods and results: This analysis was an open-label, prospective registry including all patients admitted to our centre for PPCI from April 2014 to April 2016. Heparin was reintroduced as standard anticoagulant in April 2015. During the 2 years, 1291 patients underwent a PPCI, 662 in the Bivalirudin protocol period (Cohort B) and 629 in the Heparin protocol period (Cohort H). Baseline and procedural characteristics were not significantly different, except for a higher use of thromboaspiration and femoral access in the earlier Cohort B. Glycoprotein 2b3a (Gp2b3a) antagonists were used in 24% of the patients in Cohort B versus 28% in Cohort H (P<0.01). We did not observe any differences in death at 180 days (11.03% in Cohort B vs 11.29% in Cohort H)(HR 95% CI 0.98 (0.72 to 1.33), P=0.88). The incidence of any bleeding complications at 30 days did not differ between the two periods (21.9% vs 21.9%, P=0.99). The cost related to the anticoagulants amounted to £246 236 in Cohort B versus £4483 in Cohort H (£324 406 vs £102 347 when adding Gp2b3a antagonists). Conclusion: We did not find clinically relevant changes in patient outcomes, including bleeding complications with reintroduction of heparin in our PPCI protocol. However, the use of heparin was associated with a major reduction in treatment costs.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...