Legislative Documents

Also, variously referred to as: House bills; House documents; House legislative documents; legislative documents; General Court documents

Procedural characteristics.

<p>Procedural characteristics.</p

ROC curve analysis.

<p>An increase in 6h post-PCI NGAL > 96 ng/ml significantly predicts an absolute SCr increase > 0.24 mg/dl after contrast exposure with sensitivity of 53% and specificity of 74% (AUC 0.819, 95% CI: 0.656 to 0.983, p = 0.005) and with and OR of 3.15 (p = 0.023).</p

Clinical, demographic and laboratory baseline characteristics of the study population.

<p>Clinical, demographic and laboratory baseline characteristics of the study population.</p

Might Imperial Caesar, dead and turned to clay, stop a hole to keep the wind away?

n/

Fractional flow reserve in acute coronary syndromes and in stable ischemic heart disease: clinical implications

Background: Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease (SIHD) is universally accepted, while in Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) is less established. Aims of this retrospective study were: to compare in patients undergoing FFR assessment the prognostic impact of ACS vs SIHD, to evaluate the clinical relevance of the modality of utilization and timing of FFR assessment and to assess the different outcomes associated with an FFR&gt; or 640.80. Methods: Major cardiac adverse events were assessed at a follow up of 16.4 \ub1 10.5 months in 543 patients with SIHD and 231 with ACS needing functional evaluation. FFR was used for lesions of ambiguous significance in the absence of a clear culprit vessel (first intention, FI) and for incidental lesions in the presence of a clear culprit vessel (second intention, SI). The decision to perform FFR and the identification of the stenosis needing functional assessment were left to the operator's discretion. Revascularization was performed when FFR was 640.80. Results: SIHD and ACS patients were not significantly different for principal clinical characteristics. ACS patients had significantly more events than SIHD, due to an excess of death and myocardial infarction. This was confirmed when FFR was used as FI, in particular if FFR was &gt;0.80. On the contrary, when FFR was used as SI, event rates were similar between ACS and SIHD patients, regardless of FFR value. Conclusions: Our study shows that using FFR the risk of recurrent events in ACS is significantly higher than in SIHD. This different outcome is confined to those patients in whom FFR is utilized for lesions of ambiguous significance in the absence of a clear culprit vessel

Prognostic impact of FFR/contrast FFR discordance

Background: Contrast fractional flow reserve (cFFR) is a relatively new tool for the assessment of intermediate coronary artery stenosis and represents a reliable surrogate of FFR with the advantage of potentially simplifying functional evaluation. We aimed to compare the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients undergoing functional evaluation with both FFR and cFFR based on the results of the two indexes. Method and Result: We retrospectively analyzed outcomes in 488 patients who underwent functional evaluation with FFR and cFFR. Patients were divided into four groups using the cutoff values of 0.80 for FFR and 0.85 for cFFR: -/- (n = 298), +/+ (n = 134), -/+(n = 31) and +/- (n = 25). All patients were treated according to FFR value. MACE rate was assessed in each group, including death, myocardial infarction and urgent target vessel revascularization (TVR). Mean follow-up time was 22 +/- 15 months. Incidence of MACE at follow-up was 8.3% in FFR-/cFFR-, 14.0% in FFR+/cFFR+, 16.0% in FFR-/cFFR+ and 8.0% in FFR+/cFFR- without a significant difference amongst the 4 groups (p = 0.2). Nevertheless, a significant difference in the rate of TVR comparing FFR-/ cFFR- (n = 17) and FFR-/cFFR+ (n = 5) was found at 24 months (5.7% vs 16.0%; p = 0.027). Conclusion: cFFR is accurate in predicting FFR and consequently reliable in guiding coronary revascularization. In the rare case of discordance, while FFR+/cFFRpatients show a prognosis similar to FFR-/cFFRpatients, FFR-/ cFFR+ patients show a prognosis similar to FFR+/cFFR+ patients. (c) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

Fractional flow reserve in acute coronary syndromes and in stable ischemic heart disease: clinical implications

Background: Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease (SIHD) is universally accepted, while in Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) is less established. Aims of this retrospective study were: to compare in patients undergoing FFR assessment the prognostic impact of ACS vs SIHD, to evaluate the clinical relevance of the modality of utilization and timing of FFR assessment and to assess the different outcomes associated with an FFR> or ≤0.80. Methods: Major cardiac adverse events were assessed at a follow up of 16.4 ± 10.5 months in 543 patients with SIHD and 231 with ACS needing functional evaluation. FFR was used for lesions of ambiguous significance in the absence of a clear culprit vessel (first intention, FI) and for incidental lesions in the presence of a clear culprit vessel (second intention, SI). The decision to perform FFR and the identification of the stenosis needing functional assessment were left to the operator's discretion. Revascularization was performed when FFR was ≤0.80. Results: SIHD and ACS patients were not significantly different for principal clinical characteristics. ACS patients had significantly more events than SIHD, due to an excess of death and myocardial infarction. This was confirmed when FFR was used as FI, in particular if FFR was >0.80. On the contrary, when FFR was used as SI, event rates were similar between ACS and SIHD patients, regardless of FFR value. Conclusions: Our study shows that using FFR the risk of recurrent events in ACS is significantly higher than in SIHD. This different outcome is confined to those patients in whom FFR is utilized for lesions of ambiguous significance in the absence of a clear culprit vessel