RESUMO
RESUMEN Los pacientes que presentan síndrome coronario agudo se benefician de la utilización de antiagregantes plaquetarios para reducir la recurrencia de eventos isquémicos. Durante mucho tiempo estuvimos acostumbrados a indicar una combinación fija de aspirina más un inhibidor del receptor P2Y12 por un tiempo estricto. Sin embargo, la complejidad de los pacientes y de los procedimientos que en ellos se realizan nos obligan, como médicos, a buscar las mejores combinaciones posibles, tanto en lo referido al tipo de fármacos utilizados como a la duración del tratamiento, con el fin de lograr el mejor equilibrio entre protección isquémica y riesgo hemorrágico. En los últimos años, múltiples estudios llevados a cabo en esta línea han mostrado que diferentes estrategias pueden beneficiar a nuestros pacientes en distintos escenarios. En la siguiente revisión brindamos una descripción general de los conocimientos actuales sobre el tratamiento con antiagregantes plaquetarios, junto con algunas sugerencias sobre su manejo.
ABSTRACT Patients with acute coronary syndrome benefit from the use of antiplatelet agents to reduce the recurrence of ischemic events. For a long time, we have been used to indicating a fixed combination of aspirin plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor during a strict period of time. However, the complexity of patients and procedures force us, as physicians, to seek the best possible combinations, both of the type of drugs used as treatment duration, in order to achieve the best balance between ischemic protection and bleeding risk. In recent years, numerous studies carried out in this regard have shown that different strategies may benefit our patients in different settings. In the following review we provide an overview of the current knowledge about antiplatelet therapies, along with some suggestions on their management.
RESUMO
RESUMEN Introducción: Existe información limitada sobre estrategias de tratamiento con inhibidores del receptor P2Y12 (iP2Y12) en síndromes coronarios agudos sin elevación del segmento ST (SCASEST) en la vida real. Objetivos: Determinar la incidencia de eventos cardíacos adversos mayores (MACE)y sangrado BARC ≥2, según la estrategia de tratamiento con iP2Y12 a 6 meses. Material y métodos: Subanálisis preespecificado del registro BUENOS AIRES I (n = 1100). Se estratificó la cohorte según "pretratamiento" con iP2Y12 (antes de conocer la anatomía coronaria), o "tratamiento en sala" (luego de conocer la anatomía coronaria) y se analizó la incidencia de eventos clínicos, según: pretratamiento con clopidogrel/ticagrelor, tratamiento en sala con clopidogrel/ticagrelor. Resultados: La edad media fue 65,4 ± 11,5 años, con 77,2% de sexo masculino. El 79,72% recibió iP2Y12, el 75% como pretratamiento y 25% como tratamiento en sala. Los pacientes con pretratamiento fueron más jóvenes y con más infarto agudo de miocardio (IAM), en comparación con el subgrupo de tratamiento en sala. A los 6 meses, no hubo diferencias significativas en la incidencia de MACE (16,4% vs. 14,4%; p = 0,508), o sangrado BARC ≥2 (14,7% vs. 11,1%; p = 0,205), entre los distintos momentos de administración del iP2Y12. El tratamiento con ticagrelor presentó menos MACE en comparación con el clopidogrel (p = 0,044), sin diferencias en sangrados. No se observaron diferencias en MACE entre ticagrelor en pretratamiento o tratamiento en sala (p = 0,893). Conclusiones: El subgrupo de pacientes seleccionados para recibir pretratamiento con iP2Y12 no presentó diferencias en MACE ni sangrado en relación con los tratados en sala. Los pacientes seleccionados para su tratamiento con ticagrelor en sala presentaron un balance beneficioso entre eventos isquémicos y hemorrágicos.
ABSTRACT Background: There is limited real life information on treatment strategies with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors (P2Y12i) in nonST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS). Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and BARC bleeding ≥2, according to the treatment strategy with P2Y12i at 6 months. Methods: The study used the pre-specified subanalysis of the BUENOS AIRES I registry (n=1100). The cohort was stratified according to P2Y12i "pretreatment" (before knowing the coronary anatomy), or "ward treatment" (after knowing the coronary anatomy), and the incidence of clinical events was analyzed according to pretreatment or ward treatment with clopidogrel/ ticagrelor. Results: Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.5 years and 77.2% were male patients. In 79.72% of cases patients received P2Y12i, 75% as pretreatment and 25% as ward treatment. Pretreatment patients were younger and with greater prevalence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with the ward treatment subgroup. At 6 months, there were no significant differences in the incidence of MACE (16.4% vs. 14.4%; p = 0.508), or BARC bleeding ≥2 (14.7% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.205), between the different times of P2Y12i administration. Treatment with ticagrelor presented reduced MACE compared with clopidogrel (p = 0.044), with no difference in bleeding. No MACE differences were observed between pretreatment or in ward treatment with ticagrelor (p=0.893). Conclusions: The subgroup of patients selected to receive P2Y12i pretreatment did not present differences in MACE or bleeding relative to those treated in ward. Patients selected for ticagrelor treatment in ward presented a beneficial balance between ischemic and hemorrhagic events.
RESUMO
Una de cada 4 coronariografías realizadas por isquemia miocárdica presenta lesiones menores al 50% Este dato desencadenó un creciente interés en la comunidad médica. La Sociedad Americana de Cardiología publicó recientemente un artículo que describe la posición consensuada de un grupo de expertos sobre la fisiopatología, el diagnóstico y el tratamiento de esta entidad. Nuestro trabajo refleja una revisión narrativa y la posición de un grupo de expertos pertenecientes a diferentes instituciones con servicios de Cardiología jerarquizados. Aborda aspectos fisiopatológicos y diagnósticos para comprender el enfoque actual del tratamiento, tanto en pacientes que ingresan con diagnóstico de MINOCA (infa rto de miocardio con lesiones angiográficas no graves) o de INOCA (angina e isquemia demostradas, pero sin lesiones coronarias que justifiquen este síndrome).
One in every four coronarographies performed to study myocardial ischemia shows coronary angiographic stenosis less than 50%. This data triggered an increasing interest in the medical community. The American Society of Cardiology recently published a position paper about the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of this entity. Our group performed a narrative review reflecting the opinion of cardiology experts from different centers in Argentina. It aims physiopatologic and diagnostic aspect to understand the current approach in patients with MINOCA (myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries) e INOCA (demonstrated angina and ischemia but without coronary lesions that justify this syndrome).
Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Isquemia Miocárdica/fisiopatologia , Isquemia Miocárdica/diagnóstico por imagem , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Infarto do Miocárdio/fisiopatologia , Infarto do Miocárdio/diagnóstico por imagem , Prognóstico , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Cineangiografia/métodos , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X/métodos , Fatores de Risco , Angiografia Coronária/métodos , Vasos Coronários/fisiopatologia , Vasos Coronários/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
Actualmente existen dudas sobre la seguridad del uso del catéter de Swan Ganz (CSG). Para definir la opinión de los cardiólogos de nuestro país, el Consejo de Emergencias Cardiovasculares de la Sociedad Argentina de Cardiología (SAC) realizó una reunión para evaluar la opinión de expertos en diferentes escenarios (cirugía no cardíaca, cardíaca, síndromes coronarios e insuficiencia cardíaca), usando el método RAND-UCLA appropiateness. Se envió la evidencia bibliográfica previa a la reunión en la SAC y en la misma los panelistas seleccionaron las variables para conformar las situaciones clínicas que luego fueron enviadas para que individualmente, en una segunda etapa, determinaran si consideraban beneficioso o perjudicial la utilización del catéter con una escala de 1 a 9 (1 significaba que los potenciales perjuicios superaban a los beneficios, 9 que los beneficios eran mayores y 5 que podía considerarse indistintamente beneficioso o perjudicial). Dos expertos analizaron los resultados, describiendo la tasa de acuerdo/desacuerdo. Finalmente, cada indicación se clasificó como “apropiada”, “dudosa” o inapropiada de acuerdo a la mediana definida por los panelistas: 1-3 se clasificó como inapropiado, 4-6 dudoso y 7-9 como indicación apropiada. Observamos gran discrepancia en la opinión sobre la indicación de CSG entre los expertos. Sin embargo, los panelistas estuvieron a favor de su utilización en situaciones que incluían shock y disfunción miocárdica, especialmente cuando se asoció disfunción orgánica. Hubo situaciones en las que los panelistas consideraron inapropiada la indicación del CSG, en pacientes sin disfunción orgánica.(AU)
Investigators have raised doubts as to the safety of the Swan Ganz catheter (SGC). In order to define the point of view of cardiologists in our country, the Argentine Society of Cardiology’s Emergency Council organized a meeting to analyze their views in different settings (non-cardiac surgery, cardiac surgery, acute coronary syndromes and heart failure) using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. A detailed review with the scientific evidence was sent to the experts in cardiology prior to the meeting in the SAC auditorium where the panellists selected the clinical variables create the specific situations. These hypothetic situations were resent to the panellists at a second stage for their individual evaluation, rating the benefit-to-harm ratio of the procedure on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 meant that the expected harms greatly outweighed the expected benefits, and 9 that the expected benefits greatly outweighed the expected harms, 5 could mean either that the harms and benefits were roughly equal). Two experts analyzed the results, describing the agreement/disagreement ratio. Finally, each indication was classified as “appropriate,” “uncertain” or “inappropriate” for the procedure in accordance with the panelists’ median score: median scores in the 1-3 range were classified as inappropriate, those in the 4-6 range as uncertain, and those in the 7-9 range as appropriate. We observed high disagreement rates in SGC indications between cardiologists. However, the panelists were in favor of SGC use when situations included shock and myocardial dysfunction, especially in the presence of organic dysfunction. There were some situations when panelists considered SGC not useful, in patients without organ failure.(AU)
RESUMO
Actualmente existen dudas sobre la seguridad del uso del catéter de Swan Ganz (CSG). Para definir la opinión de los cardiólogos de nuestro país, el Consejo de Emergencias Cardiovasculares de la Sociedad Argentina de Cardiología (SAC) realizó una reunión para evaluar la opinión de expertos en diferentes escenarios (cirugía no cardíaca, cardíaca, síndromes coronarios e insuficiencia cardíaca), usando el método RAND-UCLA appropiateness. Se envió la evidencia bibliográfica previa a la reunión en la SAC y en la misma los panelistas seleccionaron las variables para conformar las situaciones clínicas que luego fueron enviadas para que individualmente, en una segunda etapa, determinaran si consideraban beneficioso o perjudicial la utilización del catéter con una escala de 1 a 9 (1 significaba que los potenciales perjuicios superaban a los beneficios, 9 que los beneficios eran mayores y 5 que podía considerarse indistintamente beneficioso o perjudicial). Dos expertos analizaron los resultados, describiendo la tasa de acuerdo/desacuerdo. Finalmente, cada indicación se clasificó como “apropiada”, “dudosa” o inapropiada de acuerdo a la mediana definida por los panelistas: 1-3 se clasificó como inapropiado, 4-6 dudoso y 7-9 como indicación apropiada. Observamos gran discrepancia en la opinión sobre la indicación de CSG entre los expertos. Sin embargo, los panelistas estuvieron a favor de su utilización en situaciones que incluían shock y disfunción miocárdica, especialmente cuando se asoció disfunción orgánica. Hubo situaciones en las que los panelistas consideraron inapropiada la indicación del CSG, en pacientes sin disfunción orgánica.
Investigators have raised doubts as to the safety of the Swan Ganz catheter (SGC). In order to define the point of view of cardiologists in our country, the Argentine Society of Cardiology’s Emergency Council organized a meeting to analyze their views in different settings (non-cardiac surgery, cardiac surgery, acute coronary syndromes and heart failure) using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. A detailed review with the scientific evidence was sent to the experts in cardiology prior to the meeting in the SAC auditorium where the panellists selected the clinical variables create the specific situations. These hypothetic situations were resent to the panellists at a second stage for their individual evaluation, rating the benefit-to-harm ratio of the procedure on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 meant that the expected harms greatly outweighed the expected benefits, and 9 that the expected benefits greatly outweighed the expected harms, 5 could mean either that the harms and benefits were roughly equal). Two experts analyzed the results, describing the agreement/disagreement ratio. Finally, each indication was classified as “appropriate,” “uncertain” or “inappropriate” for the procedure in accordance with the panelists’ median score: median scores in the 1-3 range were classified as inappropriate, those in the 4-6 range as uncertain, and those in the 7-9 range as appropriate. We observed high disagreement rates in SGC indications between cardiologists. However, the panelists were in favor of SGC use when situations included shock and myocardial dysfunction, especially in the presence of organic dysfunction. There were some situations when panelists considered SGC not useful, in patients without organ failure.
Assuntos
Humanos , Síndrome Coronariana Aguda/terapia , Cardiologia , Cateterismo de Swan-Ganz , Consenso , Cateterismo de Swan-Ganz/efeitos adversos , Cateterismo de Swan-Ganz/normas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Insuficiência Cardíaca/terapia , Medição de RiscoRESUMO
Investigators have raised doubts as to the safety of the Swan Ganz catheter (SGC). In order to define the point of view of cardiologists in our country, the Argentine Society of Cardiologys Emergency Council organized a meeting to analyze their views in different settings (non-cardiac surgery, cardiac surgery, acute coronary syndromes and heart failure) using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method. A detailed review with the scientific evidence was sent to the experts in cardiology prior to the meeting in the SAC auditorium where the panellists selected the clinical variables create the specific situations. These hypothetic situations were resent to the panellists at a second stage for their individual evaluation, rating the benefit-to-harm ratio of the procedure on a scale of 1 to 9 (1 meant that the expected harms greatly outweighed the expected benefits, and 9 that the expected benefits greatly outweighed the expected harms, 5 could mean either that the harms and benefits were roughly equal). Two experts analyzed the results, describing the agreement/disagreement ratio. Finally, each indication was classified as "appropriate" "uncertain" or "inappropriate" ,for the procedure in accordance with the panelists median score: median scores in the 1-3 range were classified as inappropriate, those in the 4-6 range as uncertain, and those in the 7-9 range as appropriate. We observed high disagreement rates in SGC indications between cardiologists. However, the panelists were in favor of SGC use when situations included shock and myocardial dysfunction, especially in the presence of organic dysfunction. There were some situations when panelists considered SGC not useful, in patients without organ failure.