1. |
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
- Lindahl, Bertil, 1957-, et al.
(författare)
-
Poor long-term prognosis in patients admitted with strong suspicion of acute myocardial infarction but discharged with another diagnosis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Internal Medicine. - : Wiley. - 0954-6820 .- 1365-2796. ; 290:2, s. 359-372
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Characteristics and prognosis of patients admitted with strong suspicion of myocardial infarction (MI) but discharged without an MI diagnosis are not well-described. Objectives: To compare background characteristics and cardiovascular outcomes in patients discharged with or without MI diagnosis. Methods: The DETermination of the role of Oxygen in suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction (DETO2X-AMI) trial compared 6629 patients with strong suspicion of MI randomized to oxygen or ambient air. The main composite end-point of this subgroup analysis was the incidence of all-cause death, rehospitalization with MI, heart failure (HF) or stroke during a follow-up of 2.1 years (median; range: 1–3.7 years) irrespective of randomized treatment. Results: 1619 (24%) received a non-MI discharge diagnosis, and 5010 patients (76%) were diagnosed with MI. Groups were similar in age, but non-MI patients were more commonly female and had more comorbidities. At thirty days, the incidence of the composite end-point was 2.8% (45 of 1619) in non-MI patients, compared to 5.0% (250 of 5010) in MI patients with lower incidences in all individual end-points. However, for the long-term follow-up, the incidence of the composite end-point increased in the non-MI patients to 17.7% (286 of 1619) as compared to 16.0% (804 of 5010) in MI patients, mainly driven by a higher incidence of all-cause death, stroke and HF. Conclusions: Patients admitted with a strong suspicion of MI but discharged with another diagnosis had more favourable outcomes in the short-term perspective, but from one year onwards, cardiovascular outcomes and death deteriorated to a worse long-term prognosis.
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
- Yndigegn, T., et al.
(författare)
-
Beta-Blockers after Myocardial Infarction and Preserved Ejection Fraction
- 2024
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Most trials that have shown a benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction included patients with large myocardial infarctions and were conducted in an era before modern biomarker-based diagnosis of myocardial infarction and treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention, antithrombotic agents, high-intensity statins, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists.Methods In a parallel-group, open-label trial performed at 45 centers in Sweden, Estonia, and New Zealand, we randomly assigned patients with an acute myocardial infarction who had undergone coronary angiography and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% to receive either long-term treatment with a beta-blocker (metoprolol or bisoprolol) or no beta-blocker treatment. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction.Results From September 2017 through May 2023, a total of 5020 patients were enrolled (95.4% of whom were from Sweden). The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.7). A primary end-point event occurred in 199 of 2508 patients (7.9%) in the beta-blocker group and in 208 of 2512 patients (8.3%) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.16; P=0.64). Beta-blocker treatment did not appear to lead to a lower cumulative incidence of the secondary end points (death from any cause, 3.9% in the beta-blocker group and 4.1% in the no-beta-blocker group; death from cardiovascular causes, 1.5% and 1.3%, respectively; myocardial infarction, 4.5% and 4.7%; hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, 1.1% and 1.4%; and hospitalization for heart failure, 0.8% and 0.9%). With regard to safety end points, hospitalization for bradycardia, second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, hypotension, syncope, or implantation of a pacemaker occurred in 3.4% of the patients in the beta-blocker group and in 3.2% of those in the no-beta-blocker group; hospitalization for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 0.6% and 0.6%, respectively; and hospitalization for stroke in 1.4% and 1.8%.Conclusions Among patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent early coronary angiography and had a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>= 50%), long-term beta-blocker treatment did not lead to a lower risk of the composite primary end point of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction than no beta-blocker use. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; REDUCE-AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03278509.) Hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction and preserved EF were assigned to receive open-label long-term beta-blocker therapy or not. Beta-blockers did not lead to a lower risk of death or MI.
|
|