Long-term clinical outcome of elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with early percutaneous coronary intervention : Insights from the BASE ACS randomized controlled trial Bioactive versus everolimus-eluting stents in elderly patients

Background: The BASE ACS trial demonstrated an outcome of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated bioactive stents (BAS) that was non-inferior to everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We performed a post hoc analysis of elderly versus non-elderly patients from the BASE ACS trial. Methods: We randomized 827 patients (1:1) presenting with ACS to receive either BAS or EES. The primary end-point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE): a composite of cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). Follow-up was planned at 12 months and yearly thereafter for up to 7 years. Elderly age was defined as >= 65 years. Results: Of the 827 patients enrolled in the BASE ACS trial, 360 (43.5%) were elderly. Mean follow-up duration was 4.2 +/- 1.9 years. MACE was more frequent in elderly versus younger patients (19.7% versus 12.0%, respectively, p = 0.002), probably driven by more frequent cardiac death and non-fatal MI events (5.3% versus 1.5%, and 9.7% versus 4.5%, p = 0.002 and p = 0.003, respectively). The rates of ischemia-driven TLR were comparable (p > 0.05). In propensity score-matched analysis (215 pairs), only cardiac death was more frequent in elderly patients (6% versus 1.4%, respectively, p = 0.01). Diabetes independently predicted both MACE and cardiac death in elderly patients. Conclusions: Elderly patients treated with stent implantation for ACS had worse long-term clinical outcome, compared with younger ones, mainly due to a higher death rate. (C) 2016 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch : the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV

Background It is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation. Methods The study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB >= 2.75 mm, >= 50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates. Results A total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n = 221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p = 0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p = 0.10) after simple versus complex treatment. Conclusion In the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years.Peer reviewe

Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch:the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV

Background - It is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation. Methods - The study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB≥2.75 mm, ≥50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates. Results - A total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n=221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI −0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p=0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p=0.10) after simple versus complex treatment. Conclusion - In the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE) : a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Background Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. Methods In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1: 1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1 . 35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. Findings Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 29% for PCI (121 events) and 19% for CABG (81 events), HR 1 . 48 (95% CI 1 . 11-1 . 96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0 . 0066). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 19% (1 . 55, 1 . 18-2 . 04, p= 0 . 0015). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 12% versus 9% (1 . 07, 0 . 67-1 . 72, p= 0 . 77) for all-cause mortality, 7% versus 2% (2 . 88, 1 . 40-5 . 90, p= 0 . 0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1 . 50, 1 . 04-2 . 17, p= 0 . 032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2 . 25, 0 . 93-5 . 48, p= 0 . 073) for stroke. Interpretation The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease.Peer reviewe

Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction 2010/2011: current status in 37 ESC countries

Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We conducted this study to evaluate the contemporary status on the use and type of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries. Methods and results A cross-sectional descriptive study based on aggregated country-level data on the use of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI during 2010 or 2011. Thirty-seven ESC countries were able to provide data from existing national or regional registries. In countries where no such registries exist, data were based on best expert estimates. Data were collected on the use of STEMI reperfusion treatment and mortality, the numbers of cardiologists, and the availability of PPCI facilities in each country. Our survey provides a brief data summary of the degree of variation in reperfusion therapy across Europe. The number of PPCI procedures varied between countries, ranging from 23 to 884 per million inhabitants. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis were the dominant reperfusion strategy in 33 and 4 countries, respectively. The mean population served by a single PPCI centre with a 24-h service 7 days a week ranged from 31 300 inhabitants per centre to 6 533 000 inhabitants per centre. Twenty-seven of the total 37 countries participated in a former survey from 2007, and major increases in PPCI utilization were observed in 13 of these countries. Conclusion Large variations in reperfusion treatment are still present across Europe. Countries in Eastern and Southern Europe reported that a substantial number of STEMI patients are not receiving any reperfusion therapy. Implementation of the best reperfusion therapy as recommended in the guidelines should be encourage

Opettajan auktoriteetti : Ilmiön tarkastelua toisella asteella

Tämän kehityshankkeen tarkoituksena oli selvittää mitä on opettajan auktoriteetti toisella asteella, mikä on auktoriteetin nykyinen tila ja miten opettajan auktoriteettia voi kehittää. Menetelmänä käytettiin laadullista tutkimusta ja empiirisiä kokemuksia. Tutkimusta suoritettiin opetus-havainnointien yhteydessä opettajille tehdyillä ja vapaaehtoisella opiskelija kyselyillä (kyselykaavake Liite 1.) Haastattelukyselyssä tuli esille useiden opettajien mielipide, ettei opettaja tarvitse auktoriteettia! Puolet kyselyyn vastanneista opettajista oli sitä mieltä, että auktoriteetti on historiaa, mutta kun seurasi heidän opetustyötään, oli luokka selvästi opettajan hallussa. Opettajalehti on viime aikoina ottanaut auktoriteetin parantamisen ja opettajan arvovallan palauttamisen liitteen 2 mukaan vahvasti esille. Tutkimustulosten mukaan opettajan auktoriteetti on valtasuhde, joka syntyy opettajan ja opiskelijan välille. Auktoriteetti syntyy opettajan toiminnan tuloksena ja valta on ansaittava. Opettajalle on sysätty opetustyön lisäksi myös kasvatustehtävä, josta vanhemmat ovat perinteisesti huolehtineet. Opettajuus on muuttunut juuri työnkuvansa suhteen, opettaja ei enää automaattisesti ole auktoriteetti vaan auktoriteettiuskin on ansaittava. Opettaja joutuukin kuuntelemaan ja ottamaan huomioon sekä oppilaiden että hänen vanhempiensa näkökulmat. Opettaja on muuttunut tavalliseksi palkansaajaksi palkansaajien joukossa. (Korkeakivi 2012.) Opiskelijasta on tullut oikeuksistaan tietoinen ASIAKAS! Tämän kehityshankkeen tuloksia ja johtopäätöksiä voidaan hyödyntää vaikkapa toisen asteen koulutuksessa, kun opettajien kadotettua arvovaltaa ja auktoriteettia yritetään metsästää takaisin

MANTA versus ProGlide vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Background: The MANTA system is a novel vascular closure device (VCD) and its safety and efficacy were compared to the ProGlide VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).Methods: This is a retrospective study including 222 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI at three Finnish University Hospitals. The MANTA VCD was used in 107 patients and their outcome was compared with that of 115 patients in whom the arterial access was closed with the ProGlide VCD.Results: VARC-2 VCD failure occurred less frequently in the MANTA cohort (3.7% vs. 7.8%, p = 0378), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. When adjusted for the introducer outer diameter, the MANTA cohort had similar rates of VARC-2 major vascular complications (93% vs. 12.2%, adjusted: p = 0.456), VARC-2 life-threatening/disabling bleeding (93% vs. 6.1%, adjusted: p = 0.296) and need of invasive treatment of bleeding (4.7% vs. 7.0%, adjusted: p = 0.416) compared to the ProGlide cohort. Additional VCDs were more frequently needed in the ProGlide cohort (583% vs. 1.9%, p Conclusions: In patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, the MANTA VCD showed a similar risk of VARC-2 vascular and bleeding complications compared to the ProGlide VCD, but it reduced significantly the need of additional VCDs for completion of hemostasis.</p

MANTA versus ProGlide vascular closure devices in transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Abstract Background: The MANTA system is a novel vascular closure device (VCD) and its safety and efficacy were compared to the ProGlide VCD in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods: This is a retrospective study including 222 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVI at three Finnish University Hospitals. The MANTA VCD was used in 107 patients and their outcome was compared with that of 115 patients in whom the arterial access was closed with the ProGlide VCD. Results: VARC-2 VCD failure occurred less frequently in the MANTA cohort (3.7% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.378), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. When adjusted for the introducer outer diameter, the MANTA cohort had similar rates of VARC-2 major vascular complications (9.3% vs. 12.2%, adjusted: p = 0.456), VARC-2 life-threatening/disabling bleeding (9.3% vs. 6.1%, adjusted: p = 0.296) and need of invasive treatment of bleeding (4.7% vs. 7.0%, adjusted: p = 0.416) compared to the ProGlide cohort. Additional VCDs were more frequently needed in the ProGlide cohort (58.3% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, the MANTA VCD showed a similar risk of VARC-2 vascular and bleeding complications compared to the ProGlide VCD, but it reduced significantly the need of additional VCDs for completion of hemostasis