Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: Comorbid elderly patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (non-STEMI) are underrepresented in randomized trials and undergo fewer cardiac catheterizations according to registries. Our aim was to compare the conservative and invasive strategies in these patients.
Methods: Randomized multicenter study, including 106 patients (January 2012-March 2014) with non-STEMI, over 70years and with comorbidities defined by at least two of the following: peripheral artery disease, cerebral vascular disease, dementia, chronic pulmonary disease, chronic renal failure or anemia. Patients were randomized to invasive (routine coronary angiogram, n=52) or conservative (coronary angiogram only if recurrent ischemia or heart failure, n=54) strategy. Medical treatment was identical. The main endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality, reinfarction and readmission for cardiac cause (postdischarge revascularization or heart failure), at long-term (2.5-year follow-up). Analysis of cumulative event rate (incidence rate ratio=IRR) and time to first event (hazard ratio=HR), were performed.
Results: Cardiac catheterization/revascularization rates were 100%/58% in the invasive versus 20%/9% in the conservative arm. There were no differences between groups in the main endpoint (invasive vs conservative: IRR=0.946, 95% CI 0.466-1.918, p=0.877) at long-term. The invasive strategy, however, tended to improve 3-month outcomes in terms of mortality (HR=0.348, 95% CI 0.122-0.991, p=0.048), and of mortality or ischemic events (reinfarction or postdischarge revascularization) (HR=0.432, 95% CI 0.190-0.984, p=0.046). This benefit declined during follow-up.
Conclusions: Invasive management did not modify long-term outcome in comorbid elderly patients with non-STEMI. The finding of a tendency towards an improvement in the short-term needs confirmation in larger studies (clinicaltrials.govNCT1645943).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.07.003 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!