130 research outputs found

    Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft in left main coronary artery disease: a comprehensive meta-analysis of adjusted observational studies and randomized controlled trials

    Full text link
    BACKGROUND Treatment of patients with ULMCA (unprotected left main coronary artery disease) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been compared with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), without conclusive results. METHODS All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with multivariate analysis comparing PCI and CABG for ULMCA were included. Major cardiovascular events (MACEs, composite of all-cause death, MI, definite or probable ST, target vessel revascularization and stroke) were the primary end points, whereas its single components were the secondary ones, along with stent thrombosis, graft occlusion and in-hospital death and stroke. Subgroup analyses were performed according to Syntax score. RESULTS Six RCTs (4717 patients) and 20 observational studies with multivariate adjustment (14 597 patients) were included. After 5 (3-5.5) years, MACE rate was higher for PCI [odds ratio (OR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.14], without difference in death, whereas more relevant risk of MI was because of observational studies. Coronary stenting increased risk of revascularization (OR 1.52; 95% CI 1.34-1.72). At meta-regression, performance of PCI was improved by use of intra-coronary imaging and worsened by first generation stents, whereas two arterial grafts increased benefit of CABG. For patients with Syntax score less than 22, MACE rates did not differ, whereas for higher values, CABG reduced MACE because of lower risk of revascularization. Incidence of graft occlusion was 3.24% (2.25-4.23), whereas 2.13% (1.28-2.98: all CI 95%) of patients experienced stent thrombosis. CONCLUSION Surgical revascularization reduces risk of revascularization for ULMCA patients, especially for those with Syntax score greater than 22, with a higher risk of in-hospital death. Intra-coronary imaging and use of arterial grafts improved performance of revascularization strategies

    Incidence, Risk Factors and Outcome of Pre-engraftment Gram-Negative Bacteremia after Allogeneic and Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: An Italian Prospective Multicenter Survey

    Get PDF
    Background Gram-negative bacteremia (GNB) is a major cause of illness and death after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), and updated epidemiological investigation is advisable. Methods We prospectively evaluated the epidemiology of pre-engraftment GNB in 1118 allogeneic HSCTs (allo-HSCTs) and 1625 autologous HSCTs (auto-HSCTs) among 54 transplant centers during 2014 (SIGNB-GITMO-AMCLI study). Using logistic regression methods. we identified risk factors for GNB and evaluated the impact of GNB on the 4-month overall-survival after transplant. Results The cumulative incidence of pre-engraftment GNB was 17.3% in allo-HSCT and 9% in auto-HSCT. Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the most common isolates. By multivariate analysis, variables associated with GNB were a diagnosis of acute leukemia, a transplant from a HLA-mismatched donor and from cord blood, older age, and duration of severe neutropenia in allo-HSCT, and a diagnosis of lymphoma, older age, and no antibacterial prophylaxis in auto-HSCT. A pretransplant infection by a resistant pathogen was significantly associated with an increased risk of posttransplant infection by the same microorganism in allo-HSCT. Colonization by resistant gram-negative bacteria was significantly associated with an increased rate of infection by the same pathogen in both transplant procedures. GNB was independently associated with increased mortality at 4 months both in allo-HSCT (hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.45-3.13; P <.001) and auto-HSCT (2.43; 1.22-4.84; P =.01). Conclusions Pre-engraftment GNB is an independent factor associated with increased mortality rate at 4 months after auto-HSCT and allo-HSCT. Previous infectious history and colonization monitoring represent major indicators of GNB. Clinical Trials registration NCT02088840

    Pulmonary Artery Catheter Monitoring in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Time for a Reappraisal?

    Get PDF
    Cardiogenic shock represents one of the most dramatic scenarios to deal with in intensive cardiology care and is burdened by substantial short-term mortality. An integrated approach, including timely diagnosis and phenotyping, along with a well-established shock team and management protocol, may improve survival. The use of the Swan-Ganz catheter could play a pivotal role in various phases of cardiogenic shock management, encompassing diagnosis and haemodynamic characterisation to treatment selection, titration and weaning. Moreover, it is essential in the evaluation of patients who might be candidates for long-term heart-replacement strategies. This review provides a historical background on the use of the Swan-Ganz catheter in the intensive care unit and an analysis of the available evidence in terms of potential prognostic implications in this setting

    Measurement of the cosmic ray spectrum above 4×10184{\times}10^{18} eV using inclined events detected with the Pierre Auger Observatory

    Full text link
    A measurement of the cosmic-ray spectrum for energies exceeding 4×10184{\times}10^{18} eV is presented, which is based on the analysis of showers with zenith angles greater than 60∘60^{\circ} detected with the Pierre Auger Observatory between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2013. The measured spectrum confirms a flux suppression at the highest energies. Above 5.3×10185.3{\times}10^{18} eV, the "ankle", the flux can be described by a power law E−γE^{-\gamma} with index Îł=2.70±0.02 (stat)±0.1 (sys)\gamma=2.70 \pm 0.02 \,\text{(stat)} \pm 0.1\,\text{(sys)} followed by a smooth suppression region. For the energy (EsE_\text{s}) at which the spectral flux has fallen to one-half of its extrapolated value in the absence of suppression, we find Es=(5.12±0.25 (stat)−1.2+1.0 (sys))×1019E_\text{s}=(5.12\pm0.25\,\text{(stat)}^{+1.0}_{-1.2}\,\text{(sys)}){\times}10^{19} eV.Comment: Replaced with published version. Added journal reference and DO
    • 

    corecore