| 1. |
- Angiolillo, Dominick J., et al.
(författare)
-
International Expert Consensus on Switching Platelet P2Y(12) Receptor-Inhibiting Therapies
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 136:20, s. 1955-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y(12) inhibitor is the treatment of choice for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. The availability of different oral P2Y(12) inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) has enabled physicians to contemplate switching among therapies because of specific clinical scenarios. The recent introduction of an intravenous P2Y(12) inhibitor (cangrelor) further adds to the multitude of modalities and settings in which switching therapies may occur. In clinical practice, it is not uncommon to switch P2Y(12) inhibitor, and switching may be attributed to a variety of factors. However, concerns about the safety of switching between these agents have emerged. Practice guidelines have not fully elaborated on how to switch therapies, leaving clinicians with limited guidance on when and how to switch therapies when needed. This prompted the development of this expert consensus document by key leaders from North America and Europe with expertise in basic, translational, and clinical sciences in the field of antiplatelet therapy. This expert consensus provides an overview of the pharmacology of P2Y(12) inhibitors, different modalities and definitions of switching, and available literature and recommendations for switching between P2Y(12) inhibitors.
|
|
| 2. |
- Chiang, Cho-Han, et al.
(författare)
-
Performance of the European Society of Cardiology 0/1-Hour, 0/2-Hour, and 0/3-Hour Algorithms for Rapid Triage of Acute Myocardial Infarction : An International Collaborative Meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of Internal Medicine. - 0003-4819. ; 175:1, s. 101-113
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines recommend using the 0/1-hour and 0/2-hour algorithms over the 0/3-hour algorithm as the first and second choices of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn)-based strategies for triage of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI).PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracies of the ESC 0/1-hour, 0/2-hour, and 0/3-hour algorithms.DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2020. (PROSPERO: CRD42020216479).STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies that evaluated the ESC 0/1-hour, 0/2-hour, or 0/3-hour algorithms in adult patients presenting with suspected AMI.DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was index AMI. Twenty unique cohorts were identified. Primary data were obtained from investigators of 16 cohorts and aggregate data were extracted from 4 cohorts. Two independent authors assessed each study for methodological quality.DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 32 studies (20 cohorts) with 30 066 patients were analyzed. The 0/1-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 99.1% (95% CI, 98.5% to 99.5%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.8% (CI, 99.6% to 99.9%) for ruling out AMI. The 0/2-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 98.6% (CI, 97.2% to 99.3%) and NPV of 99.6% (CI, 99.4% to 99.8%). The 0/3-hour algorithm had a pooled sensitivity of 93.7% (CI, 87.4% to 97.0%) and NPV of 98.7% (CI, 97.7% to 99.3%). Sensitivity of the 0/3-hour algorithm was attenuated in studies that did not use clinical criteria (GRACE score <140 and pain-free) compared with studies that used clinical criteria (90.2% [CI, 82.9 to 94.6] vs. 98.4% [CI, 88.6 to 99.8]). All 3 algorithms had similar specificities and positive predictive values for ruling in AMI, but heterogeneity across studies was substantial. Diagnostic performance was similar across the hs-cTnT (Elecsys; Roche), hs-cTnI (Architect; Abbott), and hs-cTnI (Centaur/Atellica; Siemens) assays.LIMITATION: Diagnostic accuracy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and cardiac troponin sampling time varied among studies.CONCLUSION: The ESC 0/1-hour and 0/2-hour algorithms have higher sensitivities and NPVs than the 0/3-hour algorithm for index AMI.PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Taiwan University Hospital.
|
|
| 3. |
- Jander, Nikolaus, et al.
(författare)
-
Velocity ratio predicts outcomes in patients with low gradient severe aortic stenosis and preserved EF
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Heart. - : BMJ. - 1355-6037 .- 1468-201X. ; 100:24, s. 1946-1953
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To evaluate the usefulness of velocity ratio (VR) in patients with low gradient severe aortic stenosis (LGSAS) and preserved EF.Background LGSAS despite preserved EF represents a clinically challenging entity. Reliance on mean pressure gradient (MPG) may underestimate stenosis severity as has been reported in the context of paradoxical low flow, LGSAS. On the other hand, grading of stenosis severity by aortic valve area (AVA) may overrate stenosis severity due to erroneous underestimation of LV outflow tract (LVOT) diameter, small body size or inconsistencies in cut-off values for severe stenosis. We hypothesised that VR may have conceptual advantages over MPG and AVA, predict clinical outcomes and thereby be useful in the management of patients with LGSAS.Methods Patients from the prospective Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study with an AVA<1.0 cm(2), MPG <= 40 mm Hg and EF >= 55% and asymptomatic at baseline were stratified according to VR with a cut-off value of 0.25. Outcomes were evaluated according to aortic valve-related events and cardiovascular death.Results Of 435 patients with LGSAS, 197 (45%) had VR<0.25 suggesting severe and 238 (55%) had VR >= 0.25 suggesting non-severe stenosis. Aortic valve-related events (mean follow-up 42 +/- 14 months) were more frequent in patients with VR<0.25 (57% vs 41%; p<0.001) as was cardiovascular death within the first 24 months (p<0.05). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, MPG was the strongest independent predictor of aortic valve events (p<0.001) followed by VR (p<0.02). Adjusting AVA by VR increased predictive accuracy for aortic valve events (area under the receiver operating curve 0.62 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.67) vs 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.61) for AVA, p=0.02) with net reclassification improvement calculated at 0.36 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.54, p<0.001). VR did not improve the prediction of clinical events by MPG.Conclusions In the difficult setting of LGSAS, VR shows a strong association with valve-related events and - although not outperforming MPG-may be particularly useful in guiding clinical management.
|
|
