Introduction: Anticoagulation reduces the risk of stroke and embolization and is recommended in most patients with atrial fibrillation. Patients after coronary intervention and acute coronary syndromes require antiplatelet treatment. Although oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy may interfere with the outcome of patients after coronary intervention, its exact impact remains unclear. Importantly, risk-benefit relations may be considerably different after myocardial infarction.
Material And Methods: Data of patients registered from the Hungarian Myocardial Infarction Registry, a mandatory nationwide program for hospitals treating patients with myocardial infarction, were processed. Patients registered between 01.2014. and 12.2017 were included. All-cause mortality, the composite of cardiac events (MACE), and transfusion were compared between patients receiving OAC treatment and a propensity score (PS) matched control group. Subgroup analyses of different anticoagulation and antiplatelet strategies were performed with propensity weighted Cox proportional hazards' models to estimate risk during the first year after the index event.
Results: From 30 681 patients 1875 cases received OAC treatment and had apparently worse prognosis. After PS-matching, however, we found no difference regarding mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91 95% CI 0.77-1.09, P = .303), MACE (HR: 0.92 95% CI 0.78-1.09, P = .335) or transfusion (HR: 1.21, 95% CI 0.97-1.49, P = .086). In PS-adjusted analyses for the OAC group, patients who received aspirin were associated with lower mortality (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60-0.997, P = .048) and MACE (HR:0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92, P = .008) compared to those without aspirin.
Conclusions: In patients with acute myocardial infarction, the prognosis of OAC-treated patients was comparable to the PS matched control; however, the omission of aspirin therapy was associated with unfavorable outcomes.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14179 | DOI Listing |
Am J Ther
January 2025
Division of Cardiology, Ellis Hospital, New York, NY.
Background: In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or myocardial infarction (MI), anemia is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Transfusion goals in such patients remain unclear.
Study Question: A meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted comparing restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies in patients with symptomatic CAD/MI.
Herz
January 2025
Herzzentrum Leipzig, Universitätsklinik für Kardiologie, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289, Leipzig, Deutschland.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) encompasses a spectrum of diagnoses ranging from unstable angina pectoris to myocardial infarction with and without ST-segment elevation and frequently presents as the first clinical manifestation. It is crucial in this scenario to perform a timely and comprehensive assessment of patients by evaluating the clinical presentation, electrocardiogram and laboratory diagnostics using highly sensitivity cardiac troponin in order to initiate a timely and risk-adapted continuing treatment with immediate or early invasive coronary angiography.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCurr Cardiol Rep
January 2025
Department of Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgery, Sandra Atlas Bass Heart Hospital at North Shore University Hospital, Northwell Health, 300 Community Drive, 1 DSU, Manhasset, NY, 11030, USA.
Purpose Of Review: This article discusses a tailored approach to managing cardiogenic shock and temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS). We also outline specific mobilization strategies for patients with different tMCS devices and configurations, which can be enabled by this tailored approach to cardiogenic shock management.
Recent Findings: Safe and effective mobilization of patients with cardiogenic shock receiving tMCS can be accomplished.
Cells
January 2025
Department of Chemistry, Biology and Biotechnologies, University of Perugia, Via dell'Elce di Sotto 8, 06123 Perugia, Italy.
Eur Heart J
January 2025
Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen DK-2100, Denmark.
Cardiogenic shock represents a critical condition in which the heart is unable to maintain adequate circulation leading to insufficient tissue perfusion and end-organ failure. Temporary mechanical circulatory support offers the potential to stabilize patients, provide a bridge-to-recovery, provide a bridge-to-decision, or facilitate definitive heart replacement therapies. Although randomized controlled trials have been performed in infarct-related cardiogenic shock and refractory cardiac arrest, the optimal timing, appropriate patient selection, and optimal implementation of these devices remain complex and predominantly based on observational data and expert consensus, especially in non-ischaemic shock.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!