P.389 Baseline cortisol, psychotic symptoms and clinical outcome after one year in ultra high-risk patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. S275-S276
Author(s):  
D. Nordholm ◽  
C. Hjorthøj ◽  
V. Mondelli ◽  
K. Krakauer ◽  
L. Randers ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Franya Hutchins ◽  
Joshua Thorpe ◽  
Matthew L. Maciejewski ◽  
Xinhua Zhao ◽  
Karin Daniels ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 3414
Author(s):  
Laura Johannsen ◽  
Julian Soldat ◽  
Andrea Krueger ◽  
Amir A. Mahabadi ◽  
Iryna Dykun ◽  
...  

An increasing number of patients with coronary artery disease are at high operative risk due to advanced age, severe comorbidities, complex coronary anatomy, and reduced ejection fraction. Consequently, these high-risk patients are often offered percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as an alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We aimed to investigate the outcome of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing high-risk PCI. We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing high-risk PCI (period 01/2016–08/2018). In-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), defined as in-hospital stroke, myocardial infarction and death, and the one-year incidence of death from any cause were assessed in patients with and without DM. There were 276 patients (age 70 years, 74% male) who underwent high-risk PCI. Eighty-six patients (31%) presented with DM (insulin-dependent DM: n = 24; non-insulin-dependent DM: n = 62). In-hospital MACCEs occurred in 9 patients (3%) with a non-significant higher rate in patients with DM (n = 5/86, 6% vs. n = 4/190 2%; p = 0.24). In patients without DM, the survival rate was insignificantly higher than in patients with DM (93.6% vs. 87.1%; p = 0.07). One-year survival was not significantly different in DM patients with more complex coronary artery disease (SYNTAX I-score ≤ 22: 89.3% vs. > 22: 84.5%; p = 0.51). In selected high-risk patients undergoing high-risk PCI, DM was not associated with an increased incidence of in-hospital MACCEs or a decreased one-year survival rate.


2003 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 366
Author(s):  
Samuele Baldasseroni ◽  
Giuseppe Steffenino ◽  
Francesco Chiarella ◽  
Giobanni Maria Santoro ◽  
Antonio L. Bartorelli ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S47
Author(s):  
M. Heinimaa ◽  
T. Ilonen ◽  
J. Huttunen ◽  
T. Svirskis ◽  
J. Korkeila ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 120 (21) ◽  
pp. 1796-1796
Author(s):  
Luc-Matthieu Fornecker ◽  
Therese Aurran-Schleinitz ◽  
Anne-Sophie Michallet ◽  
Bruno Cazin ◽  
Jehan Dupuis ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 1796 Introduction: FCR chemoimmunotherapy is recommended as first line therapy for fit cll patients. Since the 2007 EBMT guidelines based on the previously published trials using FCR, the definition of high risk CLL has evolved, to include biologic parameters (TP53 disruption by deletion/mutation, high b2-microglobulin level, IgVH unmutated, complex karyotype), refractoriness (progression during fluda-based regimen or within 6mo of completion), and also remission duration (high risk if PFS after FCR <24mo, ultra-high risk if TTNT <24–36mo with TP53 del/mut). However, few data are available regarding the characteristiscs, response rate and outcome of CLL patients treated in second line after FCR first line. Patients and methods: In this multicentric retrospective study, we collected data from 117 patients who relapsed after FCR first line therapy and received second-line therapy (according to NCI2008 guidelines). Results: At the time of initial FCR therapy: patients characteristics were as follows: Binet B/C 87.2%, unmutated IgVH 52.2%, del11q 25.6% (n=30/81 with FISH available), del17p 6.8% (n=8/87 with FISH available), bulk>5cm 22%, complex karyotype 21% (n=12/57 with karyotype available). FCR yielded 93% ORR, with 66% clinical CR, 27% PR, and 7% failed to respond. Median PFS and TTNT were 27mo and 32.5mo, respectively. At the time of relapse: patients characteristics were as follows: del11q 16.4% (n=19/65 with FISH available), del17p 19% (n=22/77), bulk>5cm 26%, complex karyotype 44% (n=24/54 with karyotype available). According to FCR remission duration, 11.1% of patients were considered as truly FCR-refractory, 47% had PFS<24mo, 34.2% had TTNT<24mo. TTNT<24mo after FCR was correlated to age>65y, del17p (20% vs 0%) and complex karyotype (38% vs11%), but not with gender, IgVH status, del11q, or bulk>5cm. Based on FCR-refractoriness, or TTNT<24mo and/or del17p, 53 patients were considered as ultra-high risk (45.3%). Various regimen were used for second-line treatment after FCR: R-bendamustine (n=47, 40.2%), alemtuzumab-based therapy (single agent or with chemo/dexa, n=22, 18.8%), R-CHOP (n=15, 12.8%), FCR (n=14, 12%), and other miscellaneous regimens (as follows: R-alkylator (n=6, 5.1%), R-DHAP (n=4, 3.4%), R-methylprednisolone (n=3, 2.6%), or investigational drugs (n=6, 5.1%)). Thus, 74.3% of patients received a second course including rituximab-based chemotherapy. Overall response rate was 78.4%, with 13.8% clinical CR, 64.6% PR, and 21.6% failure/stable disease. 14 pts (12%) underwent stem cell transplantations, 8 had maintenance therapy ongoing (ofatumumab, alemtuzumab, or lenalidomide). With regards to factors defining high-risk relapse, distribution of salvage therapies was as follows: As expected, a second course of FCR was seldom used in high-risk patients. Among ultra-high risk patients, 30.3% received R-benda, 11.3% Alem-based Rx, 32% R-CHOP and 18% the miscellaneous regimens described above. After second-line therapy, median PFS was 12 months, median TTNT was 14mo, and median OS was 36mo (20 deaths). On univariate analysis, complex karyotype (p=0.04) but not del17p (p=0.1), PFS<24mo (p=0.028) and TTNT<24mo (p=0.04) correlated with OS. Regarding treatment, OS was significantly improved in R-bendamustine-treated patients, as compared to alem-based or CHOP regimen (p=0.01). Most importantly, patients who received an allogeneic transplant benefited from significantly prolonged OS (at 4y, 70% vs 40%, p=0.03). Of note, only one patient treated with R-benda received allotransplant. Conclusions: This study shows that there are no consensus for second line therapy after FCR. Second line trials after FCR therapy are warranted. Definition of high-risk subsets of patients at relapse after FCR is of upmost importance in the management of CLL, to compare second-line strategies. Our data suggest that R-bendamustine is an efficient regimen even in high-risk patients (complex karyotype, PFS<24mo, TTNT<24mo). These data are important since this immunochemotherapy is now used as the backbone for combination with new compounds (ibrutinib, GS1101, GDC-199). Disclosures: Aurran-Schleinitz: Roche: Honoraria. Leblond:Roche: Advisory Board Other, Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Azzahhafi ◽  
N M R Van Der Sangen ◽  
D R P P Chan Pin Yin ◽  
J P Simao Henriques ◽  
W J Kikkert ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at high risk might benefit most from guideline-recommended interventions. However, it is well recognized that the delivery of guideline-directed care is inversely related to the estimated mortality risk, the so called risk-treatment paradox. Purpose To assess the existence of the risk-treatment paradox in a contemporary cohort of ACS patients and its possible association with one-year mortality. Methods The study population consisted patients enrolled in the FORCE-ACS registry who survived their initial admission. All ACS patients were stratified into low, intermediate or high mortality risk based on the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score. Optimal guideline-recommended care was defined as undergoing coronary angiography during initial hospital admission and receiving all outpatient medications with a class I guideline recommendation (i.e. aspirin, P2Y12-inhibitor, beta-blocker, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and cholesterol-lowering drug). Aspirin and/or a P2Y12-inhibitor on top of an oral anticoagulant was also considered as optimal guideline-recommended care. The cumulative incidence of one-year mortality between optimal and suboptimal managed patients, within each GRACE risk score stratum, was estimated. Results In total, 2,524 patients who were enrolled between January 2015 and June 2018 were included. Based on the GRACE risk score, 46.9% of patients were classified as low-risk, 37.6% as intermediate-risk and 15.5% as high-risk. Overall, 49.8% of patients received optimal guideline-recommended care. Among the different risk strata, 54.9% of the low-risk, 49.1% of the intermediate-risk and 36.1% of the high-risk patients received optimal guideline-recommended care (Table 1). DAPT or DAT treatment (95.3% overall) did not differ between the risk categories. Beta-blockers were prescribed less frequently (69.6% overall), butprescription rates did not differ between the risk categories. ACE-inhibitors/ARBs were prescribed in 74.1% of all patients, but less often in high risk patients. Cholesterol lowering-drugs were prescribed in almost all patients (94.9% overall), but less frequently in high risk patients. Overall, 93.9% of patients underwent coronary angiography (CAG), high-risk patients had a statistically significant lower likelihood of undergoing CAG. In all risk categories, optimal guideline-recommended care was associated with a lower one-year mortality as compared to sub-optimal treatment (5.7% vs. 15.6% in high-risk) (Fig. 1). Conclusion Patients at higher estimated mortality risk, based on the GRACE-risk score, are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care. Although, the absolute benefit from guideline-recommended care appears to be greater in high-risk patients. Receiving guideline-recommended care was associated with a statistically significant better prognosis in intermediate- and high-risk patients. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): ZonMW Netherlands TopZorgSt. Antonius Research funds Figure 1. All-cause mortality


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document