| 1. |
- Eggers, Kai M., 1962-, et al.
(författare)
-
Myocardial Infarction with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries : The Importance of Achieving Secondary Prevention Targets
- 2018
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Medicine. - : Elsevier. - 0002-9343 .- 1555-7162. ; 131:5, s. 524-531
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Around 5-10% of all myocardial infarction patients have non-obstructive coronary arteries. Studies investigating the importance of follow-up and achievement of conventional secondary prevention targets in these patients are lacking.METHODS: In this analysis from the SWEDEHEART registry, we investigated 5830 myocardial infarction patients with non-obstructive coronary arteries (group 1) and 54,637 myocardial infarction patients with significant coronary artery disease (≥50% stenosis; group 2). Multivariable- and propensity score-adjusted statistics were used to assess the reduction in the one-year risk of major adverse events associated with prespecified secondary preventive measures: participation in follow-up at 6-10 weeks after the hospitalization; achievement of secondary prevention targets (blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the target ranges, non-smoking, participation in exercise training).RESULTS: Patients in group 1 were less often followed up compared to patients in group 2 and less often achieved any of the secondary prevention targets. Participation in the 6-10 week follow-up was associated with a 3-20% risk reduction in group 1, similar as for group 2 according to interaction analysis. The improvement in outcome in group 1 was mainly mediated by achieving target range low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (24-32% risk reduction) and, to a smaller extent, by participation in exercise training (10-23% risk reduction).CONCLUSIONS: Selected secondary preventive measures are associated with prognostic benefit in myocardial infarction patients with non-obstructive coronary arteries, in particular achieving target range low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Our results indicate that these patients should receive similar follow-up as myocardial infarction patients with significant coronary stenoses.
|
|
| 2. |
- Eggers, Kai M., 1962-, et al.
(författare)
-
Unstable Angina in the Era of Cardiac Troponin Assays with Improved Sensitivity-A Clinical Dilemma
- 2017
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Medicine. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 0002-9343 .- 1555-7162. ; 130:12, s. 1423-1430
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: There is an expectation that with the adoption of more sensitive cardiac troponin (cTn) assays, unstable angina would become a rarity. However, recent data from the SWEDEHEART registry demonstrated that 15% of patients admitted with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome still were regarded as having unstable angina. We aimed to further investigate the clinical characteristics and outcome of these patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective, registry-based analysis (SWEDEHEART) including 3204 unstable patients, 18,194 non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients, and 977 controls without acute cardiovascular disease. All patients had available data on peak cTnT levels (more sensitive assay) and 1-year outcome. RESULTS: The annual proportions of patients with unstable angina (2009-2013) among those with non-STelevation acute coronary syndrome ranged from 9.4% to 15.3%. Only 1239 unstable angina patients (39.7%) had a peak cTnT level = 14 ng/L. Patients with unstable angina tended to be younger than those with NSTEMI but had higher prevalence of most cardiovascular risk factors and more advanced coronary artery disease. Compared with controls, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) regarding major cardiovascular events were 2.97 (1.30-6.78) and 5.44 (2.54-11.65) in unstable angina patients with peak cTnT = 14 ng/L and > 14 ng/L, respectively. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of unstable angina is still commonly used, even in the era of more sensitive cTn assays. Minor cTnT elevation is common, which makes unstable angina difficult to distinguish from NSTEMI. Patients with unstable angina have a nonneglectable cardiovascular risk. We suggest that the clinical management of patients presenting with unstable symptoms should depend on their estimated cardiovascular risk rather than on strictly applied diagnostic criteria. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
