A PHP Error was encountered

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

Early or deferred cardiovascular magnetic resonance after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction for effective risk stratification. | LitMetric

Aims: In ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) holds the potentiality to improve risk stratification in addition to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score. Nevertheless, the optimal timing for CMR after STEMI remains poorly defined. We aim at comparing the prognostic performance of three stratification strategies according to the timing of CMR after STEMI.

Methods And Results: The population of this prospective registry-based study included 492 reperfused STEMI patients. All patients underwent post-reperfusion (median: 4 days post-STEMI) and follow-up (median: 4.8 months post-STEMI) CMR. Left ventricular (LV) volumes, function, infarct size, and microvascular obstruction extent were quantified. Primary endpoint was a composite of all-death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Baseline-to-follow-up percentage increase of LV end-diastolic (EDV; ΔLV-EDV) ≥20% or end-systolic volumes (ESV; ΔLV-ESV) ≥15% were tested against outcome. Three multivariate models were developed including TIMI risk score plus early post-STEMI (early-CMR) or follow-up CMR (deferred-CMR) or both CMRs parameters along with adverse LV remodelling (paired-CMRs). During a median follow-up of 8.3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 84 patients (47 deaths; 37 HF hospitalizations). Early-CMR, deferred-CMR, and paired-CMR demonstrated similar predictive value for the primary endpoint (C-statistic: 0.726, 0.728, and 0.738, respectively; P = 0.663). ΔLV-EDV ≥20% or ΔLV-ESV ≥15% were unadjusted outcome predictors (hazard ratio: 2.020 and 2.032, respectively; P = 0.002 for both) but lost their predictive value when corrected for other covariates in paired-CMR model.

Conclusion: In STEMI patients, early-, deferred-, or paired-CMR were equivalent stratification strategies for outcome prediction. Adverse LV remodelling parameters were not independent prognosticators.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ehjci/jez179DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

myocardial infarction
12
primary endpoint
12
cardiovascular magnetic
8
magnetic resonance
8
st-segment-elevation myocardial
8
risk stratification
8
timi risk
8
risk score
8
timing cmr
8
stratification strategies
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!