| 1. |
- Kristensen, Steen D., et al.
(författare)
-
Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction 2010/2011 : current status in 37 ESC countries
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 35:29, s. 1957-1970
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We conducted this study to evaluate the contemporary status on the use and type of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries. Methods and results A cross-sectional descriptive study based on aggregated country-level data on the use of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI during 2010 or 2011. Thirty-seven ESC countries were able to provide data from existing national or regional registries. In countries where no such registries exist, data were based on best expert estimates. Data were collected on the use of STEMI reperfusion treatment and mortality, the numbers of cardiologists, and the availability of PPCI facilities in each country. Our survey provides a brief data summary of the degree of variation in reperfusion therapy across Europe. The number of PPCI procedures varied between countries, ranging from 23 to 884 per million inhabitants. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis were the dominant reperfusion strategy in 33 and 4 countries, respectively. The mean population served by a single PPCI centre with a 24-h service 7 days a week ranged from 31 300 inhabitants per centre to 6 533 000 inhabitants per centre. Twenty-seven of the total 37 countries participated in a former survey from 2007, and major increases in PPCI utilization were observed in 13 of these countries. Conclusion Large variations in reperfusion treatment are still present across Europe. Countries in Eastern and Southern Europe reported that a substantial number of STEMI patients are not receiving any reperfusion therapy. Implementation of the best reperfusion therapy as recommended in the guidelines should be encouraged.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Jolly, Sanjit S., et al.
(författare)
-
Procedural Volume and Outcomes With Radial or Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097. ; 63:10, s. 954-963
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach. Background RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021),which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding. Methods In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables. Results In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate-(HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p 0.98). Conclusions Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273) (C) 2014 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Tricoci, Pierluigi, et al.
(författare)
-
Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes
- 2012
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 366:1, s. 20-33
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation.METHODS:In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization.RESULTS:Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONS:In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).
|
|
| 10. |
- Valgimigli, Marco, et al.
(författare)
-
Usefulness and Safety of Vorapaxar in Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the TRACER Trial)
- 2014
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9149 .- 1879-1913. ; 114:5, s. 665-673
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The therapeutic potential of vorapaxar in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. This prespecified analysis of a postrandomization subgroup evaluated the effects of vorapaxar compared with placebo among Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) participants undergoing PCI, focusing on the implanted stent type (drug-eluting stent [DES] vs bare-metal stent [BMS]). Among 12,944 recruited patients, 7,479 (57.8%) underwent PCI during index hospitalization, and 3,060 (40.9%) of those patients received exclusively BMS, whereas 4,015 (53.7%) received DES. The median (twenty-fifth, seventy-fifth percentiles) duration of thienopyridine therapy was 133 days (47, 246) with BMS and 221 days (88, 341) with DES. At 2 years among patients undergoing PCI, the primary (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization) and secondary (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) end points did not differ between vorapaxar and placebo groups, which was consistent with the treatment effect observed in the overall study population (p value for interaction = 0.540). However, the treatment effect trended greater (p value for interaction = 0.069) and the risk for bleeding in patients taking vorapaxar versus placebo appeared attenuated in BMS-only recipients. After adjustment for confounders, the interaction was no longer significant (p value = 0.301). The covariate that mostly explained the stent-type-by-treatment interaction was the duration of clopidogrel therapy. In conclusion, among patients with PCI, the effect of vorapaxar is consistent with the overall TRACER results. Patients who received a BMS underwent shorter courses of clopidogrel therapy and displayed trends toward greater ischemic benefit from vorapaxar and lesser bleeding risk, compared with patients who received a DES.
|
|
