Percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty of global kidney ischemia improves renal function and blood pressure.

BACKGROUND: Renal artery stenosis (RAS) can lead to hypertension and renal failure. Nevertheless, its treatment by percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty (PTRA) remains controversial. It is unknown, whether patients with global kidney ischemia (GKI), that means patients with bilateral RAS or RAS with a single functioning kidney, may benefit from PTRA or not. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 93 patients with RAS (25 bilateral or single functioning kidney) undergoing PTRA. Patients had refractory hypertension (≥3 medications). Blood pressure, antihypertensive drugs and serum-creatinine were compared pre-/post-intervention and at 1 year's follow-up. RESULTS: At 1 year after PTRA of patients with GKI, systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly reduced compared to patients with unilateral PTRA (systolic: -19.1 ± 10.5 [bilateral] vs. -11.4 ± 12.1 mmHg [unilateral], P < 0.01; diastolic: -10.1 ± 6.8 mmHg vs. -6.3 ± 6.6 mmHg, P < 0.05). The number of antihypertensive drugs was reduced by -0.8 ± 3.0 at 1 year in patients with GKI, while it increased by +0.1 ± 3.5 in the unilateral RAS group (P < 0.001). Furthermore, post-interventional serum-creatinine decreased by -34.6 ± 31.4 µmol/I after of patients with GKI (P < 0.001 vs. baseline). In patients with unilateral PTRA, a non-significant increase in serum-creatinine was observed (+8.3 ± 2 µmol/l). CONCLUSION: PTRA in patients with GKI led to improved blood pressure and renal function. A large, well-designed, randomized clinical trial targeting this population is still needed. The benefit of PTRA should be measured with the risks in each patient individually.

Heparin plus alteplase compared with heparin alone in patients with submassive pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: The use of thrombolytic agents in the treatment of hemodynamically stable patients with acute submassive pulmonary embolism remains controversial. METHODS: We conducted a study of patients with acute pulmonary embolism and pulmonary hypertension or right ventricular dysfunction but without arterial hypotension or shock. The patients were randomly assigned in double-blind fashion to receive heparin plus 100 mg of alteplase or heparin plus placebo over a period of two hours. The primary end point was in-hospital death or clinical deterioration requiring an escalation of treatment, which was defined as catecholamine infusion, secondary thrombolysis, endotracheal intubation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, or emergency surgical embolectomy or thrombus fragmentation by catheter. RESULTS: Of 256 patients enrolled, 118 were randomly assigned to receive heparin plus alteplase and 138 to receive heparin plus placebo. The incidence of the primary end point was significantly higher in the heparin-plus-placebo group than in the heparin-plus-alteplase group (P=0.006), and the probability of 30-day event-free survival (according to Kaplan-Meier analysis) was higher in the heparin-plus-alteplase group (P=0.005). This difference was due to the higher incidence of treatment escalation in the heparin-plus-placebo group (24.6 percent vs. 10.2 percent, P=0.004), since mortality was low in both groups (3.4 percent in the heparin-plus-alteplase group and 2.2 percent in the heparin-plus-placebo group, P=0.71). Treatment with heparin plus placebo was associated with almost three times the risk of death or treatment escalation that was associated with heparin plus alteplase (P=0.006). No fatal bleeding or cerebral bleeding occurred in patients receiving heparin plus alteplase. CONCLUSIONS: When given in conjunction with heparin, alteplase can improve the clinical course of stable patients who have acute submassive pulmonary embolism and can prevent clinical deterioration requiring the escalation of treatment during the hospital stay.

Possible gender-related differences in the risk-to-benefit ratio of thrombolysis for acute submassive pulmonary embolism.

The indications for thrombolytic treatment in normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) are still the subject of debate, and it also remains questionable whether the efficacy and safety of thrombolysis are similar in men and women. To address the latter issue, the present study analyzed a large population of 428 women and 291 men with acute submassive PE derived from a prospective multicenter registry. Initial treatment consisted either of thrombolysis (<24 hours after diagnosis) or heparin alone. Thirty-day overall mortality was almost identical (11%) in heparin-treated men and women. Early thrombolysis was associated with drastically reduced death rates (2.7% vs 11% in the heparin group, p = 0.033) in men, whereas the reduction was nonsignificant (p = 0.181) in women. Multivariate analysis revealed that early thrombolysis was independently associated with reduced mortality rates in men (odds ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.96). In comparison, its favorable effect in women was marginal (odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.97). Gender-specific differences were also observed with regard to the reduction of symptomatic PE recurrence (in men, from 21.6% to 8.2%, p = 0.009; in women, from 16.9% to 8.3%, p = 0.049). In contrast, thrombolysis resulted in a more than threefold increase in major bleeding in women (from 8.4% to 27.1%, p <0.001), a more pronounced effect than in men (from 6.9% to 15.1%, p = 0.055). In conclusion, the present study generated the hypothesis that women with submassive PE might benefit less from thrombolytic treatment in terms of survival and PE recurrence and that they could be exposed to a higher bleeding risk compared with men.

Embolic protection devices for carotid artery stenting: is there a difference between filter and distal occlusive devices?

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the efficacy of a filter embolic protection device (F-EPD) and a distal occlusive embolic protection device (DO-EPD) in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS). BACKGROUND: The embolic protection device (EPD) may lower the periprocedural rate of cerebral ischemic events during CAS. However, it is unclear whether there is a difference in effectiveness between the different types of EPD. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Carotid Artery Stent (CAS) Registry. RESULTS: From July 1996 to July 2003, 1,734 patients were included in the prospective CAS Registry. Of these patients, 729 patients were treated with an EPD, 553 (75.9%) with F-EPD, and 176 (24.1%) with DO-EPD. Patients treated with DO-EPD were more likely to be treated for symptomatic stenosis (64.5% vs. 53.4%, p = 0.011). The carotid lesions in patients treated under DO-EPD seemed to be more complicated, as expressed by a higher proportion of ulcers (p = 0.035), severe calcification (p = 0.039), a longer lesion length (p = 0.025), and a higher pre-interventional grade of stenosis (p < 0.001). The median duration of the CAS intervention was 30 min in the DO-EPD group, compared with 48 min in the filter group (p < 0.001). No differences in clinical events rate between the two groups of protection devices were observed. Multivariate analysis on the occurrence of the combined end point of in-hospital death or stroke found no difference between filter- and DO-EPD (4 of 176 [2.3%] for DO-EPD vs. 10 of 551 [1.8%] for F-EPD; adjusted odds ratio = 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 4.44; p = 0.958). CONCLUSIONS: Filter EPD is the currently preferred method of EPD in clinical practice. Both F-EPD and DO-EPD seem to be equally effective during CAS.

Importance of cardiac troponins I and T in risk stratification of patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of risk and appropriate management of patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) remains a challenge. Cardiac troponins I (cTnI) and T (cTnT) are reliable indicators of myocardial injury and may be associated with right ventricular dysfunction in PE. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present prospective study included 106 consecutive patients with confirmed acute PE. cTnI was elevated (> or =0.07 ng/mL) in 43 patients (41%), and cTnT (> or =0.04 ng/mL) was elevated in 39 (37%). Elevation of cTnI or cTnT was significantly associated with echocardiographically detected right ventricular dysfunction (P=0.001 and P<0.05, respectively). Moreover, a significant correlation was found between elevation of cTnI or cTnT and the two major end points overall mortality and complicated in-hospital course. The negative predictive value of cardiac troponins for major clinical events was 92% to 93%. Importantly, there was obvious escalation of in-hospital mortality, the rate of complications, and the incidence of recurrent PE, when patients with high troponin concentrations (cTnI >1.5; cTnT >0.1 ng/mL) were compared with those with only moderately elevated levels (cTnI, 0.07 to 1.5; cTnT, 0.04 to 0.1 ng/mL). Logistic regression analysis confirmed that the mortality risk (OR) was significantly elevated only in patients with high cTnI (P=0.019) or cTnT (P=0.038) levels. Furthermore, the risk of a complicated in-hospital course was almost 5 times higher (15.47 versus 3.16) in the high-cTnI group compared with patients with moderate cTnI elevation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that cTnI and cTnT may be a novel, particularly useful tool for optimizing the management strategy in patients with acute PE.

Use of drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction with persistent ST-segment elevation: results of the ALKK PCI-registry.

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the rate of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and target vessel revascularization significantly when compared with bare metal stents (BMS). Their beneficial effects have been demonstrated in patients with acute myocardial infarction also, but the use of DES in the latter population seems to be still limited in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2006 to December 2011, 25,424 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled in the German ALKK PCI-registry. In 5,467 patients (21.5 %), a DES was implanted in the culprit segment, in 16,911 patients (66.5 %) a BMS, and 2,959 patients (11.6 %) received neither DES nor BMS. The rates of DES for typical subgroups were 31.7 % in patients with diabetes, 36.6 % in unprotected left main stenosis, 32.4 % in ostial lesions, 32.0 % for a stent length >15 mm, 26.2 % for a stent diameter ≤3 mm, and 58.5 % for ISR. There was a wide range in the use of DES between the different ALKK hospitals with a minimum of 2.3 % and a maximum of 58.3 % for the total study period (median 22.0 %, quartiles 14.6 and 37.5 %). CONCLUSIONS: Despite convincing data for the use of DES in patients with STEMI, there is still an underuse of DES in this clinical setting in Germany. This is particularly worrying for the subgroups of patients and lesions with a high risk of restenosis. Further efforts are needed to reduce the skepticism about DES and to improve guideline adherent treatment.

Embolic protection devices for carotid artery stenting: better results than stenting without protection?

AIMS: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) for carotid artery stenoses has become an alternative to carotid endarterectomy. However, CAS itself can cause cerebral ischaemic events. Embolic protection devices (PD) promise to reduce the incidence of these events. METHODS AND RESULTS: From July 1996 to March 2003, 1483 patients from 26 hospitals were included in the prospective CAS Registry of the ALKK study group. A PD was used in 668 of 1483 patients (45%). The use of a PD has grown rapidly over the years and reached 100% in 2003. Patients treated with a PD had prior carotid artery dilatation more often (3.5% versus 1%, p < 0.001), a prior myocardial infarction (34% versus 27.4%, p = 0.007) and a history of arterial hypertension (89.9% versus 78.6%, p = 0.007) compared to patients treated without a PD. A thrombus was more often visible in patients treated under distal protection (16.5% versus 8%, p < 0.001). The use of a PD led to a 10-min longer intervention (45 min versus 35 min median, p < 0.001). Patients treated with a PD had a lower rate of ipsilateral stroke (1.7% versus 4.1%, p = 0.007) and a lower rate of all non-fatal strokes and all deaths (2.1% versus 4.9%, p = 0.004) during the hospital stay. This was confirmed by multiple logistic regression analysis (adjusted OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.23-0.91, p = 0.026). A similar reduction could be found for symptomatic as well as asymptomatic carotid artery stenoses. CONCLUSION: Since 1996 there has been a steady increase in the use of PDs for CAS, with a 100% use in 2003. The use of a PD may lower the rate of ipsilateral strokes during CAS.

Sertindole is associated with a low level of extrapyramidal symptoms in schizophrenic patients: Results of a phase III trial.

OBJECT: The objective of this double-blind, multicentre study was to evaluate four doses of sertindole and haloperidol 10 mg. METHOD: The 617 schizophrenic patients were randomized to receive sertindole 8, 16, 20 or 24 mg/day or haloperidol 10 mg/day. Patients were assessed for extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) using the Simpson-Angus Scale (SAS) and Barnes Akathisia Scale (BAS), and for movement disorders using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS). RESULTS: Patients receiving haloperidol experienced significantly more EPS than patients receiving sertindole, supporting observations made in previous studies. The incidence of adverse events was similar for all doses of sertindole. SAS and BAS scores were significantly worse in the haloperidol group than in the sertindole groups. There were significantly greater increases in mean QT c interval in the sertindole groups than in the haloperidol group. Sertindole did not cause sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Sertindole is well tolerated and does not cause the debilitating EPS associated with traditional antipsychotic drugs. (Int J Psych Clin Pract 2000; 4:47-54).

Sertindole improves both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia: Results of a phase III trial.

OBJECTS: This large multicentre, double-blind, randomized study was designed to evaluate four doses of sertindole and haloperidol 10 mg in the treatment of patients with DSM-III-R schizophrenia. METHOD: 617 patients were randomized, of whom 595 were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. 375 patients completed the study. Patients were randomized to receive sertindole 8 mg/day, sertindole 16 mg/day, sertindole 20 mg/day, sertindole 24 mg/day or haloperidol 10 mg/day for 56days. Efficacy was assessed through the changes in score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS), and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. Improvement in all end-points was observed for all treatment groups. RESULTS: Sertindole 16 mg showed significantly greater efficacy against negative symptoms than haloperidol 10 mg. The optimal dose of sertindole was 16 mg/day. Sertindole 8 mg appeared to be suboptimal with respect to efficacy, and increasing the dose of sertindole above 20 mg did not appear to offer any additional benefit. Sertindole at all doses caused significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol. CONCLUSION: Sertindole is effective against positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia within the dose range 12-24 mg daily, with an optimal starting dose of 16 mg daily. Efficacy is comparable to 10 mg of haloperidol with no difference in the time course of treatment response. The dose response relationship for efficacy with sertindole seems to plateau at about 16 mg daily with no demonstrable difference in increasing doses above this point. (Int J Psych Clin Pract 2000; 4:55-62).