scholarly journals The secondary effect of the first wave of COVID-19 and its consequences on myocardial infarction care in a high volume Hungarian cardiovascular centre

Cor et Vasa ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-349
Author(s):  
Réka Skoda ◽  
Gábor Fülöp ◽  
Emese Csulak ◽  
Krisztina Danics ◽  
Klára Törő ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Tomai ◽  
Anna Piccoli ◽  
Fausto Castriota ◽  
Luca Weltert ◽  
Bernhard Reimers ◽  
...  

Objectives. The aim of this study is to assess long-term-outcomes of patients with concomitant CAD and COD treated with different revascularization strategies. Background. Multisite artery disease is common and patients with combined disease have poor prognosis. The best therapeutic strategy for patients with concomitant carotid obstructive disease (COD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) remains controversial. Methods. This observational registry enrolled, between January 2006 and December 2012, 1022 consecutive patients from high volume institutions with concomitant CAD and COD suitable for endovascular, surgical, or hybrid revascularization in both territories selected by consensus of a multidisciplinary team. Results. The cumulative incidence of 5-year major cardiovascular events (MACCE) including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke in the overall population was 12%. The incidence of 5-year MACCE was not statistically different in the surgical, endovascular, or hybrid patients group (10.1% vs. 13.0% vs. 13.2%, P = .257, respectively). However, the hybrid group exhibited rates of myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease, and cumulative incidence of all clinical events higher than the surgical group. After propensity score matching, the incidence of 5-year MACCE was similar in the three groups (13.0% vs. 15.0% vs. 16.0%, p = .947, respectively). Conclusions. An individualized revascularization approach of patients with combined CAD and COD yields very good results at long-term follow-up, despite the high risk of this multilevel population even when the baseline clinical features are equalized.


2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 761-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Politi ◽  
Mario Galli ◽  
Santino Zerboni ◽  
Riccardo Michi ◽  
Federico De Marco ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Benedikt Schrage ◽  
Uwe Zeymer ◽  
Gilles Montalescot ◽  
Stephan Windecker ◽  
Pranas Serpytis ◽  
...  

Background Little is known about the impact of center volume on outcomes in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between center volume, treatment strategies, and subsequent outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Methods and Results In this subanalysis of the randomized CULPRIT‐SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) trial, study sites were categorized based on the annual volume of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock into low‐/intermediate‐/high‐volume centers (<50; 50–100; and >100 cases/y). Subjects from the study/compulsory registry with available volume data were included. Baseline/procedural characteristics, overall treatment, and 1‐year all‐cause mortality were compared across categories. n=1032 patients were included in this study (537 treated at low‐volume, 240 at intermediate‐volume, and 255 at high‐volume centers). Baseline risk profile of patients across the volume categories was similar, although high‐volume centers included a larger number of older patients. Low‐/intermediate‐volume centers had more resuscitated patients (57.5%/58.8% versus 42.2%; P <0.01), and more patients on mechanical ventilation in comparison to high‐volume centers. There were no differences in reperfusion success despite considerable differences in adjunctive pharmacological/device therapies. There was no difference in 1‐year all‐cause mortality across volume categories (51.1% versus 56.5% versus 54.4%; P =0.34). Conclusions In this study of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, considerable differences in adjunctive medical and mechanical support therapies were observed. However, we could not detect an impact of center volume on reperfusion success or mortality.


2021 ◽  
Vol 78 (19) ◽  
pp. B83-B84
Author(s):  
Pabla Cataldo ◽  
Fernando Verdugo ◽  
Christian Dauvergne ◽  
Manuel Mendez ◽  
Fernando Pineda ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document