Mortality in patients after acute myocardial infarction managed by cardiologists and primary care physicians : a systematic review

Introduction Mortality following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains high despite of progress in invasive and noninvasive treatments. Objectives This study aimed to compare the outcomes of ambulatory treatment provided by cardiologists versus general practitioners (GPs) in post‑AMI patients. Patients and methods We conducted a systematic search in 3 electronic databases for interventional and observational studies that reported all‑cause mortality, mortality from cardiovascular causes, stroke, and myocardial infarction at long‑term follow‑up following AMI. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS‑I) tool. For randomized trials, we used the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2.0). Results Two nonrandomized studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. We assessed these studies as having a moderate risk of bias. We did not pool the results owing to significant heterogeneity between the studies. Patients consulted by both a cardiologist and a GP were at lower risk of all‑cause death as compared with patients consulted by a cardiologist only (risk ratio [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85–0.99). Patients consulted by a cardiologist with or without GP consultation were at lower risk of all‑cause death compared with those consulted by a GP only in both studies (RR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.75–0.85 and RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.41–0.47). Conclusions Patients after AMI consulted by both a cardiologist and a GP may beat lower risk of death compared with patients consulted by a GP or a cardiologist only. However, these findings are based on moderate‑quality nonrandomized studies. We found no evidence on the relation between the specialization of the physician and the risk of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction in AMI survivors

Prognostic significance, diagnosis and treatment in patients with gastric cancer and positive peritoneal washings. A review of the literature

Peritoneal dissemination is a common consequence of a relapse following a radical surgical treatment of gastric cancer. The development of the disease in the peritoneum depends not only on its stage, but also on free cancer cells exfoliated from the tumor mass or from involved lymph nodes, and which are capable of being implanted in the peritoneum. According to the latest TNM (7 edition; 2010) classification, patients with free cancer cells in the peritoneal washings qualify for stage IV of the disease. Patients in whom free cancer cells were found during the operation – have a recurrence of gastric cancer – mainly in the peritoneum, and the majority of them die within two years of the diagnosis. To properly assess the prognosis, it is vital to determine the stage of cancer by additionally assessing the washings for the presence of free cancer cells before taking a therapeutic decision. This also allows identifying those patients who require different medical procedures to obtain the best treatment results possible. Medical literature describes various methods of examining peritoneal washings aimed at detecting free cancer cells. The methods apply different cancer cell detection rates, sensitivity and specificity in prediction of a peritoneal relapse. Oncological Departments performing the evaluation of the washings employ non-standard methods of treatment in this group of patients and the results presented are promising