Home  About us  Contact
 

Major Adverse Cardiac (major + adverse_cardiac)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Terms modified by Major Adverse Cardiac

  • major adverse cardiac event
    		•

    Selected Abstracts

    PCI versus CABG for multivessel coronary disease in diabetics,

    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 1 2009
    Giuseppe Tarantini MD
    Abstract Objectives: To explore the clinical performance of a strategy of revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with multivessel disease (MVD) compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), when it is based on clinical judgment. Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a major risk factor for poor outcome after PCI. However, PCI may result in better outcome if the choice of revascularization (PCI versus CABG) is based on the physician decision, rather than randomization. Limited experiences have compared revascularization by DES-PCI versus CABG in DM patients with MVD. Methods: From August 2004 to August 2005, 220 consecutive DM patients with MVD underwent DES-PCI (93) or CABG (127) at our Institution. The type of revascularization was dependent on patient and/or physician choice. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) included death, myocardial infarction, repeat coronary revascularization, and stroke. Results: Compared with PCI patients, CABG patients had higher prevalence of 3-vessel disease (P < 0.001), significant LAD involvement (P < 0.001), presence of total occlusions (P = 0.04), collateral circulation (P < 0.001). At 2-year follow-up, MACCE were not different between CABG group and DES-PCI group (OR 1.2; P = 0.6) and, only when the clinical judgment on the revascularization choice was excluded at propensity analysis, DES-PCI increased the risk of 24-month MACCE in total population (OR 1.8; P = 0.04). Conclusions: For patients with DM and MVD, a clinical judgment-based revascularization by DES-PCI is not associated with worse 2-year outcome compared with CABG. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]

    Comparison of Hospital Mortality With Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation Insertion Before vs After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

    CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE, Issue 5 2010
    Scott Harris DO
    We hypothesized that the insertion of the IABP before primary PCI might result in better survival of patients with cardiogenic shock compared with postponing the insertion until after primary PCI. We, therefore, retrospectively studied 48 patients who had undergone primary PCI with IABP because of cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction (26 patients received the IABP before and 22 patients after primary PCI). No significant differences were present in the baseline clinical characteristics between the 2 groups. The mean number of diseased vessels was greater in the group of patients treated with the IABP before primary PCI (2.8±0.5 vs 2.3±0.7, P=.012), but the difference in the number of treated vessels was not significant. The peak creatine kinase and creatine kinase-MB levels were lower in patients treated with the IABP before primary PCI (median, 1077; interquartile range, 438,2067 vs median, 3299; interquartile range, 695,6834; P=.047 and median, 95; interquartile range, 34,196 vs median, 192; interquartile range, 82,467; P=.048, respectively). In-hospital mortality and the overall incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were significantly lower in the group of patients receiving the IABP before primary PCI (19% vs 59% and 23% vs 77%, P=.007 and P=.0004, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified renal failure (odds ratio, 15.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.13,73.66) and insertion of the IABP after PCI (odds ratio, 5.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.09,24.76) as the only independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggest that patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who undergo primary PCI assisted by IABP have a more favorable in-hospital outcome and lower in-hospital mortality than patients who receive IABP after PCI. Abdel-Wahab M, Saad M, Kynast J, et al. Comparison of hospital mortality with intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation insertion before versus after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2010;105:967,971. [source]

    Protected Carotid Stenting in High-Risk Patients: Results of the SpideRX Arm of the Carotid Revascularization with ev3 Arterial Technology Evolution Trial

    JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOLOGY, Issue 5 2010
    ROBERT D. SAFIAN M.D.
    Purpose:,A prospective nonrandomized multicenter registry of 160 patients with severe carotid stenosis and high-risk features for carotid endarterectomy was conducted during the 3-month period from March to May 2005. Methods:,Carotid artery stenting (CAS) was performed with the SpideRXÔ Embolic Protection System (ev3, Inc., Plymouth, MN, USA) as part of an investigational device exemption from the Food and Drug Administration. Results:,The primary end-point of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at 30 days after CAS was observed in nine patients (5.6%), including death in four patients (2.5%), nonfatal stroke in five patients (3.1%), and nonfatal myocardial infarction in one patient (0.6%). A secondary end-point of technical success (defined as successful deployment of all devices, filter retrieval, and final diameter stenosis <50%) was achieved in 156 of 160 patients (97.5%). The only independent predictor of death or stroke at 30 days was baseline stenosis severity (P < 0.05). Conclusion:,CAS with distal embolic protection using the SpideRXÔ Embolic Protection System is a reasonable alternative for revascularization of some high-risk patients with severe carotid stenosis. (J Interven Cardiol 2010;23:491,498) [source]

    Safety and effectiveness of the INVATEC MO.MA® proximal cerebral protection device during carotid artery stenting: Results from the ARMOUR pivotal trial,

    CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS, Issue 1 2010
    Gary M. Ansel MD
    Abstract Objective: The multicenter ARMOUR (ProximAl PRotection with the MO.MA Device DUring CaRotid Stenting) trial evaluated the 30-day safety and effectiveness of the MO.MA® Proximal Cerebral Protection Device (Invatec, Roncadelle, Italy) utilized to treat high surgical risk patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS). Background: Distal embolic protection devices (EPD) have been traditionally utilized during CAS. The MO.MA device acts as a balloon occlusion "endovascular clamping" system to achieve cerebral protection prior to crossing the carotid stenosis. Methods: This prospective registry enrolled 262 subjects, 37 roll-in and 225 pivotal subjects evaluated with intention to treat (ITT) from September 2007 to February 2009. Subjects underwent CAS using the MO.MA device. The primary endpoint, myocardial infarction, stroke, or death through 30 days (30-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE]) was compared to a performance goal of 13% derived from trials utilizing distal EPD. Results: For the ITT population, the mean age was 74.7 years with 66.7% of the cohort being male. Symptomatic patients comprised 15.1% and 28.9% were octogenarians. Device success was 98.2% and procedural success was 93.2%. The 30-day MACCE rate was 2.7% [95% CI (1.0,5.8%)] with a 30-day major stroke rate of 0.9%. No symptomatic patient suffered a stroke during this trial. Conclusions: The ARMOUR trial demonstrated that the MO.MA® Proximal Cerebral Protection Device is safe and effective for high surgical risk patients undergoing CAS. The absence of stroke in symptomatic patients is the lowest rate reported in any independently adjudicated prospective multicenter registry trial to date. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]