Percutaneous coronary intervention in asians- are there differences in clinical outcome?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ethnic differences in clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been reported. Data within different Asian subpopulations is scarce. We aim to explore the differences in clinical profile and outcome between Chinese, Malay and Indian Asian patients who undergo PCI for coronary artery disease (CAD).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing PCI from January 2002 to December 2007 at a tertiary care center was analyzed. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization and all-cause death at six months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>7889 patients underwent PCI; 7544 (96%) patients completed follow-up and were included in the analysis (79% males with mean age of 59 years ± 11). There were 5130 (68%) Chinese, 1056 (14%) Malays and 1001 (13.3%) Indian patients. The remaining 357 (4.7%) patients from other minority ethnic groups were excluded from the analysis. The primary end-point occurred in 684 (9.1%) patients at six months. Indians had the highest rates of six month MACE compared to Chinese and Malays (Indians 12% vs. Chinese 8.2% vs. Malays 10.7%; OR 1.55 95%CI 1.24-1.93, p < 0.001). This was contributed by increased rates of MI (Indians 1.9% vs. Chinese 0.9% vs. Malays 1.3%; OR 4.49 95%CI 1.91-10.56 p = 0.001), repeat revascularization (Indians 6.5% vs. Chinese 4.1% vs. Malays 5.1%; OR 1.64 95%CI 1.22-2.21 p = 0.0012) and death (Indians 11.4% vs. Chinese 7.6% vs. Malays 9.9%; OR 1.65 95%CI 1.23-2.20 p = 0.001) amongst Indian patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These data indicate that ethnic variations in clinical outcome exist following PCI. In particular, Indian patients have higher six month event rates compared to Chinese and Malays. Future studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms behind these variations.</p

Opportunities for maternal transport for delivery of very low birth weight infants.

OBJECTIVE: To assess frequency of very low birth weight (VLBW) births at non-level III hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using linked California birth certificate and discharge data of 2008 to 2010 for deliveries of singleton or first-born infant of multiple gestations with birth weight 400 to 1500 g. Delivery rates by neonatal level of care were obtained. Risk of delivery at non-level III centers was estimated in univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: Of the 1 508 143 births, 13 919 (9.2%) were VLBW; birth rate at non-level III centers was 14.9% (8.4% in level I and 6.5% in level II). Median rate of VLBW births was 0.3% (range 0 to 4.7%) annually at level I and 0.5% (range 0 to 1.6%) at level II hospitals. Antepartum stay for &gt;24 h occurred in 14.0% and 26.9% of VLBW births in level I and level II hospitals, respectively. CONCLUSION: Further improvement is possible in reducing VLBW infant delivery at suboptimal sites, given the window of opportunity for many patients

Nutritional Factors That Influence Change in Bone Density and Stress Fracture Risk Among Young Female Cross‐Country Runners

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147168/1/pmr2740.pd

Opportunities for maternal transport for delivery of very low birth weight infants

OBJECTIVE: To assess frequency of very low birth weight (VLBW) births at non-Level III hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using linked California birth certificate and discharge data 2008–2010 for deliveries of singleton or first-born infant of multiple gestations with birth weight 400–1500g. Delivery rates by neonatal level of care were obtained. Risk of delivery at non-level III centers was estimated in univariable and multivariable models. RESULTS: Of 1,508,143 births, 13,919 (9.2%) were VLBW; birth rate at non-Level III centers was 14.9% (8.4% in Level I, and 6.5% in Level II). Median rate of VLBW births was 0.3% (range 0%–4.7%) annually at Level I and 0.5% (range 0%–1.6%) at Level II hospitals. Antepartum stay >24 hours occurred in 14.0% and 26.9% of VLBW births in Level I and Level II hospitals, respectively. CONCLUSION: Further improvement is possible in reducing VLBW infant delivery at suboptimal sites, given the window of opportunity for many patients