| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Lenzen, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Pharmacological treatment and perceived health status during 1-year follow up in patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease, but ineligible for revascularization. Results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization
- 2006
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1474-5151 .- 1873-1953. ; 5:2, s. 115-121
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: It has been recognized that a clinically significant portion of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) continue to experience anginal and other related symptoms that are refractory to the combination of medical therapy and revascularization. The Euro Heart Survey on Revascularization (EHSCR) provided an opportunity to assess pharmacological treatment and outcome in patients with proven CAD who were ineligible for revascularization. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of EHS-CR data. After excluding patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and those in whom revascularization was not indicated, 4409 patients remained in the analyses. We selected two groups: (1) patients in whom revascularization was the preferred treatment option (n = 3777, 86%), and (2) patients who were considered ineligible for revascularization (n = 632, 14%). Results: Patient ineligible for revascularization had a worse risk profile, more often had a total occlusion (59% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), were treated more often with ACE-inhibitors (65% vs. 55%, p < 0.001) but less likely with aspirin (83% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). Overall, they had higher case-fatality at 1-year (7.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Regarding self-perceived health status, measured via the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, these same patients reported more problems on all dimensions of the EQ-5D. Furthermore, in the revascularization group we observed an increase between discharge and 1-year follow up (utility score from 0.85 to 1.00) whereas patients ineligible for revascularization did not improve over time (utility score remained 0.80). Conclusion: In this large cohort of European patients with CAD, those considered ineligible for revascularization had more co-morbidities and risk factors, and scored worse on self-perceived health status as compared to revascularized patients in the revascularization group. With the exception of ACE-inhibitors and aspirin, there were no major differences regarding drug treatment between the two groups. Given these clinically significant observations, there appears to be a role for nurse-led, multidisciplinary, rehabilitation teams that target clinically vulnerable patients whose symptoms remain refractory to standard medical care. © 2006 European Society of Cardiology.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Barbato, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Renal denervation in the management of hypertension in adults. A clinical consensus statement of the ESC Council on Hypertension and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European heart journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1522-9645 .- 0195-668X. ; 44:15, s. 1313-1330
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Since the publication of the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension, several high-quality studies, including randomised, sham-controlled trials on catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) were published, confirming both the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety of radiofrequency and ultrasound RDN in a broad range of patients with hypertension, including resistant hypertension. A clinical consensus document by the ESC Council on Hypertension and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) on RDN in the management of hypertension was considered necessary to inform clinical practice. This expert group proposes that RDN is an adjunct treatment option in uncontrolled resistant hypertension, confirmed by ambulatory BP measurements, despite best efforts at lifestyle and pharmacological interventions. RDN may also be used in patients who are unable to tolerate antihypertensive medications in the long term. A shared decision-making process is a key feature and preferably includes a patient who is well informed on the benefits and limitations of the procedure. The decision-making process should take (i) the patient’s global cardiovascular (CV) risk and/or (ii) the presence of hypertension-mediated organ damage or CV complications into account. Multidisciplinary hypertension teams involving hypertension experts and interventionalists evaluate the indication and facilitate the RDN procedure. Interventionalists require expertise in renal interventions and specific training in RDN procedures. Centres performing these procedures require the skills and resources to deal with potential complications. Future research is needed to address open questions and investigate the impact of BP-lowering with RDN on clinical outcomes and potential clinical indications beyond hypertension.
|
|
