| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Svensson, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Is rheumatoid arthritis a risk factor for acute coronary syndrome also among individuals at elevated risk, such as individuals presenting with acute chest pain?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: RMD open. - : BMJ. - 2056-5933. ; 6:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are, on average, at increased risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to the general population, but it remains unknown whether RA remains an ACS risk factor also in settings where the ACS risk is already high elevated, such as among individuals presenting to the emergency department (ED) with chest pain.Methods and resultsWe included 49 283 individuals (514 (1.0%) had RA) presenting with chest pain at the four hospital EDs in Stockholm, Sweden, 2013–2016 in a cohort study. Information on exposure (RA), outcome (ACS) and comorbidities was provided through national registers. The association between RA and ACS was assessed, overall and by levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and number of ACS risk factors, using logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, hospital, calendar year and cardiovascular risk factors. ACS was more common in patients with (8.2%) than without (4.6%) RA, adjusted OR =1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.0. This association was particularly strong in individuals with initial hs-cTnT levels between 5 and 14 ng/L, or no additional ACS risk factors (adjusted ORs above 2), but no longer detectable in those with hs-cTnT >14 ng/L or with three or more additional ACS risk factors.ConclusionRA is a risk factor for ACS also among patients at the ED with chest pain. This association is not explained by traditional ACS risk factors, and most pronounced in patients with normal hs-cTnT and few other ACS risk factors, prompting particular ACS vigilance in this RA patient group.
|
|
| 7. |
- Volz, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term survival in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with or without intracoronary pressure wire guidance : a report from SCAAR
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 41:Suppl. 2, s. 2507-2507
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: Intracoronary pressure wire measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) provide decision-making guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, limited data exist on the impact of FFR/iFR on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with stable angina, unstable angina (UA)/non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), or STEMI.Methods: We used data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) on all patients in Sweden undergoing PCI (with or without FFR/iFR guidance) for stable angina, UA/NSTEMI, or STEMI between January 2005 and March 2018. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis or restenosis and periprocedural complications. The primary model was multilevel Cox proportional-hazards regression using an instrumental variable (IV) to adjust for known and unknown confounders with treating hospital as a treatment-preference instrument. The following variables were entered into Cox proportional-hazards regression in addition to the IV: age, sex, diabetes, indication for PCI, severity of coronary disease, smoking status, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, previous myocardial infarction, previous PCI, previous coronary artery bypass graft, type of stent.Results: In total, 151,001 patients underwent PCI: 31,514 (20.9%) for stable angina, 74,982 (49.6%) for UA/NSTEMI, and 44,505 (29.5%) for STEMI. Of these, FFR/iFR guidance was used in 11,433 patients (7.6%): 5029 (44.0%) with stable angina, 5989 (52.4%) with UA/NSTEMI, and 415 (3.6%) with STEMI; iFR was used in 1156 (10.1%) of these patients. After a median follow-up of 1784 (range 1–4824) days, the FFR/iFR group had lower adjusted risk estimates for all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69–0.91; P=0.001] and stent thrombosis and restenosis (HR 0.13; 95% CI 0.09–0.19; P<0.001). The number of periprocedural complications did not differ significantly between the groups (odds ratio 0.69; 95% CI 0.30–1.55; P=0.368). There was no interaction between FFR/iFR and indication for PCI. We found no difference between FFR and iFR (HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.90–1.59; P=0.216).Conclusions: In this observational study, the use of FFR/IFR was associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality in patients undergoing PCI for stable angina, UA/NSTEMI, or STEMI. Our study supports the current European and American guidelines for the use of FFR/iFR during PCI and shows that intracoronary pressure wire guidance has prognostic benefit in patients with stable angina as well as in patients with the acute coronary syndrome.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
