Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 135
Filtrar
2.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(2): e18773, 2021 Feb 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33555259

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite strong evidence supporting the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), over 80% of eligible patients do not participate in CR. Digital health technologies (ie, the delivery of care using the internet, wearable devices, and mobile apps) have the potential to address the challenges associated with traditional facility-based CR programs, but little is known about the comprehensiveness of these interventions to serve as digital approaches to CR. Overall, there is a lack of a systematic evaluation of the current literature on digital interventions for CR. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic literature review is to provide an in-depth analysis of the potential of digital health technologies to address the challenges associated with traditional CR. Through this review, we aim to summarize the current literature on digital interventions for CR, identify the key components of CR that have been successfully addressed through digital interventions, and describe the gaps in research that need to be addressed for sustainable and scalable digital CR interventions. METHODS: Our strategy for identifying the primary literature pertaining to CR with digital solutions (defined as technology employed to deliver remote care beyond the use of the telephone) included a consultation with an expert in the field of digital CR and searches of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases for original studies published from January 1990 to October 2018. RESULTS: Our search returned 31 eligible studies, of which 22 were randomized controlled trials. The reviewed CR interventions primarily targeted physical activity counseling (31/31, 100%), baseline assessment (30/31, 97%), and exercise training (27/31, 87%). The most commonly used modalities were smartphones or mobile devices (20/31, 65%), web-based portals (18/31, 58%), and email-SMS (11/31, 35%). Approximately one-third of the studies addressed the CR core components of nutrition counseling, psychological management, and weight management. In contrast, less than a third of the studies addressed other CR core components, including the management of lipids, diabetes, smoking cessation, and blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Digital technologies have the potential to increase access and participation in CR by mitigating the challenges associated with traditional, facility-based CR. However, previously evaluated interventions primarily focused on physical activity counseling and exercise training. Thus, further research is required with more comprehensive CR interventions and long-term follow-up to understand the clinical impact of digital interventions.

3.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33454249

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the concordance of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) assessment of coronary anatomy and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) as the reference standard in patients enrolled in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA). BACKGROUND: Performance of CCTA compared with ICA has not been assessed in patients with very high burdens of stress-induced ischemia and a high likelihood of anatomically significant coronary artery disease (CAD). A blinded CCTA was performed after enrollment to exclude patients with left main (LM) disease or no obstructive CAD before randomization to an initial conservative or invasive strategy, the latter guided by ICA and optimal revascularization. METHODS: Rates of concordance were calculated on a per-patient basis in patients randomized to the invasive strategy. Anatomic significance was defined as ≥50% diameter stenosis (DS) for both modalities. Sensitivity analyses using a threshold of ≥70% DS for CCTA or considering only CCTA images of good-to-excellent quality were performed. RESULTS: In 1,728 patients identified by CCTA as having no LM disease ≥50% and at least single-vessel CAD, ICA confirmed 97.1% without LM disease ≥50%, 92.2% with at least single-vessel CAD and no LM disease ≥50%, and only 4.9% without anatomically significant CAD. Results using a ≥70% DS threshold or only CCTA of good-to-excellent quality showed similar overall performance. CONCLUSIONS: CCTA before randomization in ISCHEMIA demonstrated high concordance with subsequent ICA for identification of patients with angiographically significant disease without LM disease.

4.
Circulation ; 2020 Dec 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33267610

RESUMO

Background: In ISCHEMIA, an initial invasive strategy did not significantly reduce rates of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality compared with a conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate/severe myocardial ischemia. The most frequent component of composite cardiovascular endpoints was myocardial infarction. Methods: ISCHEMIA prespecified that the primary and major secondary composite endpoints of the trial be analyzed using two MI definitions. For procedural MI, the primary MI definition used CK-MB as the preferred biomarker whereas the secondary definition used cardiac troponin. Procedural thresholds were >5 times URL for PCI and >10 times for CABG. Procedural MI definitions included (i) a category of elevated biomarker only events with much higher biomarker thresholds (ii) new ST segment depression of ≥ 1mm for the primary and ≥ 0.5 mm for the secondary definition and (iii) new coronary dissections ≥ NHLBI grade 3. We compared MI type, frequency, and prognosis by treatment assignment using both MI definitions. Results: Procedural MI's accounted for 20.1% of all MI events with the primary definition and 40.6% of all MI events with the secondary definition. Four-year MI rates in patients undergoing revascularization were more frequent with the invasive vs conservative strategy using the primary [2.7% vs. 1.1%; adjusted HR 2.98 (95% CI 1.87, 4.73)] and secondary [8.2% vs. 2.0%; adjusted HR 5.04 (95% CI 3.64, 6.97)] MI definitions. Type 1 MI's were less frequent with the invasive vs conservative strategy using the primary [3.40% vs. 6.89%; adjusted HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41,0.69); p<0.0001], and secondary [3.48% vs 6.89%; adjusted HR 0.53 (95% CI 0.41, 0.69); p<0.0001] definitions. The risk of subsequent cardiovascular death was higher after a type 1 MI compared to no MI using the primary [adjusted HR 3.38 (95% CI 2.03,5.61); p<0.001] or secondary MI definition [adjusted HR 3.52 (2.11, 5.88); p<0.001]. Conclusions: In ISCHEMIA, type 1 MI events using the primary and secondary definitions during 5-year follow-up were more frequent with an initial conservative strategy and associated with subsequent cardiovascular death. Procedural MI rates were greater in the invasive strategy and using the secondary MI definition. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT01471522.

5.
Circulation ; 142(18): 1-29, Nov. 2020. tab, graf
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, CONASS, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1148119

RESUMO

Background: It is unknown whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in patients with a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when EF >35%, but <45%. Methods: Among 5179 participants randomized into the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA), all of whom had LVEF >35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in those with a history of HF or LV dysfunction (HF/LVD) at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow up was 3.2 years. Results: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline of whom 177 had HF/LVEF>45%, 28 had HF/LVEF 35-45% and 193 had LVEF 35-45% but no prior history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly prior myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and hypertension. Compared to those without HF/LVD, those with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest; four-year cumulative incidence rate (22.7% vs. 13.8%), cardiovascular death or MI (19.7% vs. 12.3%), and all-cause death or HF (15.0% vs. 6.9%). Those with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% vs. 29.3%, difference in 4- year event rate -12.1%; 95% CI: -22.6, -1.6%), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% vs. 14.6%, difference in 4-year event rate -1.6%; 95% CI: -3.8%, 0.7%; p-interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and CV mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for those with and without prior HF. Conclusions: ISCHEMIA trial participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35-45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with a better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis generating.


Assuntos
Tratamento Conservador , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Isquemia
7.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32950442

RESUMO

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) is considered a useful test for enhancing risk assessment in the primary prevention setting. Clinical trials are under consideration. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a multidisciplinary working group on August 26 to 27, 2019, in Bethesda, Maryland, to review available evidence and consider the appropriateness of conducting further research on coronary artery calcium (CAC) testing, or other coronary imaging studies, as a way of informing decisions for primary preventive treatments for cardiovascular disease. The working group concluded that additional evidence to support current guideline recommendations for use of CAC in middle-age adults is very likely to come from currently ongoing trials in that age group, and a new trial is not likely to be timely or cost effective. The current trials will not, however, address the role of CAC testing in younger adults or older adults, who are also not addressed in existing guidelines, nor will existing trials address the potential benefit of an opportunistic screening strategy made feasible by the application of artificial intelligence. Innovative trial designs for testing the value of CAC across the lifespan were strongly considered and represent important opportunities for additional research, particularly those that leverage existing trials or other real-world data streams including clinical computed tomography scans. Sex and racial/ethnic disparities in cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality, and inclusion of diverse participants in future CAC trials, particularly those based in the United States, would enhance the potential impact of these studies.

9.
Circulation ; 142(18): 1725-1735, 2020 Nov 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32862662

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in the setting of a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when ejection fraction is ≥35% but <45% is unknown. METHODS: Among 5179 participants randomized into ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches), all of whom had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in participants with a history of HF/LVD at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow-up was 3.2 years. RESULTS: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline, of whom 177 had HF/LVEF >45%, 28 HF/LVEF 35% to 45%, and 193 LVEF 35% to 45% but no history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly previous myocardial infarction, stroke, and hypertension. Compared with patients without HF/LVD, participants with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest (4-year cumulative incidence rate, 22.7% versus 13.8%; cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, 19.7% versus 12.3%; and all-cause death or HF, 15.0% versus 6.9%). Participants with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% versus 29.3%; difference in 4-year event rate, -12.1% [95% CI, -22.6 to -1.6%]), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% versus 14.6%; difference in 4-year event rate, -1.6% [95% CI, -3.8% to 0.7%]; P interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy-associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for patients with and without previous HF. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35% to 45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis-generating. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

10.
Circulation ; 142(9): 841-857, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32794407

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Revascularization is often performed in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. However, whether revascularization reduces death and other cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted PUBMED/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches for randomized trials comparing routine revascularization versus an initial conservative strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. The primary outcome was death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, stroke, unstable angina, and freedom from angina. Trials were stratified by percent stent use and by percent statin use to evaluate outcomes in contemporary trials. RESULTS: Fourteen randomized clinical trials that enrolled 14 877 patients followed up for a weighted mean of 4.5 years with 64 678 patient-years of follow-up fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Most trials enrolled patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function and low symptom burden, and excluded patients with left main disease. Revascularization compared with medical therapy alone was not associated with a reduced risk of death (relative risk [RR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.90-1.09]). Trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the futility boundary, indicating firm evidence for lack of a 10% or greater reduction in death. Revascularization was associated with a reduced nonprocedural MI (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.67-0.85]) but also with increased procedural MI (RR, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.86-3.31]) with no difference in overall MI (RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.83-1.03]). A significant reduction in unstable angina (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.45-0.92]) and increase in freedom from angina (RR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.05-1.15]) was also observed with revascularization. There were no treatment-related differences in the risk of heart failure or stroke. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, routine revascularization was not associated with improved survival but was associated with a lower risk of nonprocedural MI and unstable angina with greater freedom from angina at the expense of higher rates of procedural MI. Longer-term follow-up of trials is needed to assess whether reduction in these nonfatal spontaneous events improves long-term survival.

11.
Surg Obes Relat Dis ; 16(9): 1372-1375, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32723601

RESUMO

Tocilizumab, a monoclonal antiinterluekin-6 receptor antibody, has been empirically used in the treatment of cytokine release syndrome associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 infections. The efficacy and safety of these medications for these patients is unknown. The purpose of this report was to present a case of acute large bowel perforation in a morbidly obese patient with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia who received empiric Tocilizumab. This case report analyzes the risks of acute large bowel perforation after using this medication empirically and discusses the appropriate management of this adverse event.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Betacoronavirus , Doenças do Ceco/etiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Perfuração Intestinal/etiologia , Obesidade Mórbida/complicações , Pneumonia Viral/tratamento farmacológico , Doenças do Ceco/diagnóstico , Doenças do Ceco/cirurgia , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Síndrome da Liberação de Citocina/etiologia , Síndrome da Liberação de Citocina/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Humanos , Perfuração Intestinal/diagnóstico , Perfuração Intestinal/cirurgia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico
12.
Am J Cardiol ; 130: 1-6, 2020 09 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32654755

RESUMO

Several risk scores in acute coronary syndromes are available, but few models exist for stable coronary artery disease to guide decision-making and prognosis. A multivariate model was developed using 23 baseline candidate variables from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Therapy EvaluationTrial (n = 2,287 patients). Discrimination of the model was evaluated by the concordance c-index. The procedure was validated using 100 random half samples. We identified 9 independent predictors of death or myocardial infarction (MI) during a 5-year follow-up. The following predictors and points contributing to the risk score were: heart failure (3), number of diseased coronary arteries (1 for each vessel), diabetes (1), age (1 for each 15 years ≥ age 45), previous revascularization (1), current smoking (1), female (1), previous MI (1), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (1: 31 to 40 mg/dL; 2: <30 mg/dL). The risk tool had a potential range from 0 to 15, corresponding to 5-year event rates of 5.8% to 56%. C-indices ranged from 0.67 for the full data set to 0.62 for the validating subsamples. Respective observed versus predicted 5-year event rates for 3 predefined risk strata revealed: 30% had a low-risk score of 0 to 3 (9.3% vs 9.3%, or 1.9%/year); 59% had an intermediate-risk score of 4-6 (18.0% vs 18.1%, or 3.6%/year); and 11% had a high-risk score of 7-11 (36% vs 36.5%, or 7.2%/year). This stable coronary artery disease risk score permitted a prognostic assessment of 5-year probability of death or MI with an approximate 4-fold range in event rates from the lowest (9.3%) to the highest (36%) terciles, thus enabling better clinical practice decisions that allow physicians to tailor the intensity of treatment to the level of risk.


Assuntos
Infarto do Miocárdio/mortalidade , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/complicações , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Modelos Estatísticos , Infarto do Miocárdio/etiologia , Prognóstico , Medição de Risco
14.
JAMA Cardiol ; 5(7): 773-786, 2020 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32227128

RESUMO

Importance: While many features of stable ischemic heart disease vary by sex, differences in ischemia, coronary anatomy, and symptoms by sex have not been investigated among patients with moderate or severe ischemia. The enrolled ISCHEMIA trial cohort that underwent coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) was required to have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for randomization. Objective: To describe sex differences in stress testing, CCTA findings, and symptoms in ISCHEMIA trial participants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of the multicenter ISCHEMIA randomized clinical trial analyzed baseline characteristics of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Individuals were enrolled from July 2012 to January 2018 based on local reading of moderate or severe ischemia on a stress test, after which blinded CCTA was performed in most. Core laboratories reviewed stress tests and CCTAs. Participants with no obstructive CAD or with left main CAD of 50% or greater were excluded. Those who met eligibility criteria including CCTA (if performed) were randomized to a routine invasive or a conservative management strategy (N = 5179). Angina was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire. Analysis began October 1, 2018. Interventions: CCTA and angina assessment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sex differences in stress test, CCTA findings, and symptom severity. Results: Of 8518 patients enrolled, 6256 (77%) were men. Women were more likely to have no obstructive CAD (<50% stenosis in all vessels on CCTA) (353 of 1022 [34.4%] vs 378 of 3353 [11.3%]). Of individuals who were randomized, women had more angina at baseline than men (median [interquartile range] Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency score: 80 [70-100] vs 90 [70-100]). Women had less severe ischemia on stress imaging (383 of 919 [41.7%] vs 1361 of 2972 [45.9%] with severe ischemia; 386 of 919 [42.0%] vs 1215 of 2972 [40.9%] with moderate ischemia; and 150 of 919 [16.4%] vs 394 of 2972 [13.3%] with mild or no ischemia). Ischemia was similar by sex on exercise tolerance testing. Women had less extensive CAD on CCTA (205 of 568 women [36%] vs 1142 of 2418 men [47%] with 3-vessel disease; 184 of 568 women [32%] vs 754 of 2418 men [31%] with 2-vessel disease; and 178 of 568 women [31%] vs 519 of 2418 men [22%] with 1-vessel disease). Female sex was independently associated with greater angina frequency (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.13-1.76). Conclusions and Relevance: Women in the ISCHEMIA trial had more frequent angina, independent of less extensive CAD, and less severe ischemia than men. These findings reflect inherent sex differences in the complex relationships between angina, atherosclerosis, and ischemia that may have implications for testing and treatment of patients with suspected stable ischemic heart disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522.

15.
N Engl J Med ; 382(17): 1619-1628, 2020 04 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32227754

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS: We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS: Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).


Assuntos
Angiografia Coronária , Ponte de Artéria Coronária , Nível de Saúde , Isquemia Miocárdica/tratamento farmacológico , Isquemia Miocárdica/cirurgia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Idoso , Teste de Esforço , Feminino , Seguimentos , Estilo de Vida Saudável , Humanos , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Isquemia Miocárdica/complicações , Isquemia Miocárdica/mortalidade , Razão de Chances , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Inquéritos e Questionários
16.
N Engl J Med ; 382(17): 1608-1618, 2020 04 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32227756

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P = 0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P = 0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).


Assuntos
Angiografia Coronária , Ponte de Artéria Coronária , Isquemia Miocárdica/tratamento farmacológico , Isquemia Miocárdica/cirurgia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Antagonistas Adrenérgicos beta/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Bloqueadores dos Canais de Cálcio/uso terapêutico , Teste de Esforço , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/prevenção & controle , Isquemia Miocárdica/complicações , Isquemia Miocárdica/mortalidade , Fatores de Risco
17.
N Engl J Med ; 382(15): 1408-1419, 2020 04 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32227753

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS: We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS: At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS: In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).


Assuntos
Angina Pectoris/epidemiologia , Isquemia Miocárdica/terapia , Revascularização Miocárdica/métodos , Qualidade de Vida , Idoso , Angiografia Coronária , Ponte de Artéria Coronária , Doença das Coronárias/diagnóstico por imagem , Doença das Coronárias/tratamento farmacológico , Doença das Coronárias/cirurgia , Feminino , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Inquéritos e Questionários , Resultado do Tratamento
18.
N Engl J Med ; 382(15): 1395-1407, 2020 04 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32227755

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).


Assuntos
Cateterismo Cardíaco , Ponte de Artéria Coronária , Doença das Coronárias/tratamento farmacológico , Doença das Coronárias/cirurgia , Revascularização Miocárdica/métodos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Idoso , Angina Instável/epidemiologia , Teorema de Bayes , Doenças Cardiovasculares/mortalidade , Angiografia por Tomografia Computadorizada , Angiografia Coronária , Doença das Coronárias/diagnóstico por imagem , Feminino , Humanos , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Isquemia Miocárdica/terapia , Qualidade de Vida
19.
Dis Colon Rectum ; 63(5): 639-645, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32032200

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Restorative total proctocolectomy with IPAA may not be feasible in some patients because of technical intraoperative limitations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess preoperative predictors for intraoperative IPAA and review management. DESIGN: This is a retrospective review. SETTING: This study was conducted at Cleveland Clinic between January 2010 and May 2018. PATIENTS: Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent ileoanal pouch surgery were included. Patients with successful pouch creation as planned were grouped as "successful IPAA creation." Operative reports of patients who underwent alternative procedures were reviewed to identify cases when the pouch was preoperatively planned but intraoperatively abandoned (IPAA-abandoned group). Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to determine predictors of intraoperative pouch abandonment. We also reviewed the management of patients in whom the initial pouch creation failed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were preoperative predictors for intraoperative ileoanal pouch abandonment. RESULTS: A total of 1438 patients were offered an ileoanal pouch; 21 (1.5%) experienced pouch abandonment due to inadequate reach (n = 17) and other technical reasons (n = 4). These patients underwent alternative procedures such as end or loop ileostomy with/without proctectomy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated male sex (OR, 6.021; 95% CI, 1.540-23.534), BMI (OR, 1.217; 95% CI, 1.114-1.329), and a 2-stage procedure (OR, 14.510; 95% CI, 4.123-51.064) as independent factors associated with intraoperative abandonment of pouch creation. Alternative procedures were total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy (n = 14) and total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy without proctectomy (n = 7). Ultimately, pouch creation was achieved in 6 of 21 patients after a median interval of 8.8 (range, 4.1-34.8) months. All patients had intentional weight loss before a reattempt and total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy without proctectomy as their initial procedure. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: Ileoanal pouch abandonment is rare and can be mitigated by initial total abdominal colectomy and weight loss. Male, obese patients are at a higher risk of failure. Intraoperative assessment of ileoanal pouch feasibility should occur before rectal dissection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B156. PREDICCIÓN MULTIVARIANTE DEL ABANDONO INTRAOPERATORIO DE LA ANASTOMOSIS ANAL CON BOLSA ILEAL: La proctocolectomía total restaurativa con anastomosis de bolsa ileoanal puede no ser posible en algunos pacientes debido a limitaciones técnicas intraoperatorias.Evaluar los predictores preoperatorios para el abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa ileoanal y revisar el manejo.Revisión retrospectiva.Cleveland Clinic entre Enero de 2010 y mayo de 2018.Pacientes > 18 años que se sometieron a cirugía de bolsa ileoanal. Los pacientes con una creación exitosa de la bolsa según lo planeado se agruparon como "creación exitosa de anastomosis de bolsa ileoanal". Se revisaron los informes operativos de los pacientes que se sometieron a procedimientos alternativos para identificar los casos en que la bolsa se planificó preoperatoriamente pero se abandonó intraoperatoriamente (grupo de "anastomosis anal de bolsa ileoanal abandonada"). Se desarrollaron modelos de regresión logística multivariante para determinar los predictores del abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa. También revisamos el manejo de pacientes que fallaron en la creación inicial de la bolsa.Predictores preoperatorios para el abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa ileoanal.A un total de 1438 pacientes se les ofreció una bolsa ileoanal; 21 (1.5%) experimentaron abandono de la bolsa debido a un alcance inadecuado (n = 17) y otras razones técnicas (n = 4). Estos pacientes se sometieron a procedimientos alternativos como ileostomía final o de asa con / sin proctectomía. El análisis de regresión logística multivariante indicó género masculino (OR, 6.021; IC 95%, 1.540-23.534), índice de masa corporal (OR, 1.217; IC 95%, 1.114-1.329) y procedimiento en 2 etapas (OR, 14.510; IC 95%, 4.123-51.064) como factores independientes asociados con el abandono intraoperatorio de la creación de la bolsa. Los procedimientos alternativos fueron la proctocolectomía total con ileostomía final (n = 14) y la colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía final sin proctectomía (n = 7). Finalmente, la creación de la bolsa se logró en 6/21 pacientes después de un intervalo medio de 8.8 (rango, 4.1-34.8) meses. Todos los pacientes tuvieron pérdida de peso intencional antes de la reintenta y colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía final sin proctectomía como procedimiento inicial.Naturaleza retrospectiva.El abandono de la bolsa ileoanal es raro y puede mitigarse mediante la colectomía abdominal total inicial y la pérdida de peso. Los pacientes masculinos y obesos tienen un mayor riesgo de fracaso. La evaluación intraoperatoria de la viabilidad de la bolsa ileoanal debe ocurrir antes de la disección rectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B156. (Traducción-Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Kahlil).


Assuntos
Bolsas Cólicas , Conversão para Cirurgia Aberta , Ileostomia , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/cirurgia , Seleção de Pacientes , Proctocolectomia Restauradora , Adulto , Índice de Massa Corporal , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Humanos , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/complicações , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/patologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco
20.
Am J Med ; 133(7): 825-830.e2, 2020 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31926863

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Insulin resistance may be present in healthy adults and is associated with poor health outcomes. Obesity is a risk factor for insulin resistance, but most obese adults do not have insulin resistance. Fitness may be protective, but the association between fitness, weight, and insulin resistance has not been studied in a large population of healthy adults. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of cardiorespiratory fitness, body mass index, and markers of insulin resistance was performed. Study participants were enrolled at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas, Texas. The analysis included 19,263 women and 48,433 men with no history of diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Cardiorespiratory fitness was measured using exercise treadmill testing. Impaired fasting glucose (100-125 mg/dL) and elevated fasting triglycerides (≥150 mg/dL) were used as a markers of insulin resistance. RESULTS: Among individuals with normal weight, poor fitness was associated with 2.2-fold higher odds of insulin resistance in women (1.4-3.6; P = .001) and 2.8-fold higher odds in men (2.1-3.6; P <.001). The impact of fitness remained significant for overweight and obese individuals, with the highest risk group being the unfit obese. Among obese women, the odds ratio for insulin resistance was 11.0 for fit women (8.7-13.9; P <.001) and 20.3 for unfit women (15.5-26.5; P <.001). Among obese men, the odds ratio for insulin resistance was 7.4 for fit men (6.7-8.2; P < .001) and 12.9 for unfit men (11.4-14.6; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Independent of weight, poor fitness is associated with risk of insulin resistance. Obese individuals, particularly women, may benefit from the greatest absolute risk reduction by achieving moderate fitness.


Assuntos
Índice de Massa Corporal , Aptidão Cardiorrespiratória/fisiologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Exercício Físico/fisiologia , Resistência à Insulina/fisiologia , Obesidade/complicações , Biomarcadores/sangue , Glicemia/metabolismo , Doenças Cardiovasculares/etiologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/fisiopatologia , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Voluntários Saudáveis , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Obesidade/sangue , Obesidade/reabilitação , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Triglicerídeos/sangue
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...