In-hospital complications after invasive strategy for the management of Non STEMI: women fare as well as men

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To analyze the in-hospital complication rate in women suffering from non-ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to men.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The files of 479 consecutive patients (133 women and 346 men) suffering from a Non STEMI (Non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) between the January 1^st2006 and March 21^st2009 were retrospectively analyzed with special attention to every single complication occurring during hospital stay. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests and are reported as median unless otherwise specified. A p value < .05 was considered significant.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As compared to men, women were significantly older (75.8 <it>vs</it>. 65.2 years; p < .005). All cardiovascular risk factors but tobacco and hypertension were similar between the groups: men were noticeably more often smoker (p < .0001) and women more hypertensive (p < .005). No difference was noticed for pre-hospital cardiovascular drug treatment. However women were slightly more severe at entry (more Killip class IV; p = .0023; higher GRACE score for in-hospital death - p = .008 and CRUSADE score for bleeding - p < .0001). All the patients underwent PCI of the infarct-related artery after 24 or 48 hrs post admission without sex-related difference either for timing of PCI or primary success rate. During hospitalization, 130 complications were recorded. Though the event rate was slightly higher in women (30% <it>vs</it>. 26% - p = NS), no single event was significantly gender related. The logistic regression identified age and CRP concentration as the only predictive variables in the whole group. After splitting for genders, these parameters were still predictive of events in men. In women however, CRP was the only one with a borderline p value.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our study does not support any gender difference for in-hospital adverse events in patients treated invasively for an acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation and elevated troponin.</p

Clinical Utilities of Peripheral Blood Gene Expression Profiling in the Management of Cardiac Transplant Patients

Cardiac allografts induce host immune responses that lead to endomyocardial tissue injury and progressive graft dysfunction. Inflammatory cell infiltration and myocyte damage characterize acute cellular rejection (ACR) that presents episodically in either a subclinical or symptom-associated manner. Sampling of the endomyocardium by transvenous biopsy enables pathologic grading using light microscopic criteria to distinguish severity based on the focality or diffuseness of inflammation and associated myocyte injury. Monitoring for ACR utilizes endomyocardial biopsy in conjunction with history and physical examination and assessment of allograft function by echocardiography. However, procedural and interpretive issues limit the diagnostic certainty provided by endomyocardial biopsy. The dynamic profiling of genes expressed by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) enables quantitative assessments of intracellular mRNA whose levels fluctuate during systemic alloimmune responses. Gene expression profiling of PBMCs using a multi-gene ACR classifier enables the AlloMap® molecular expression test to distinguish moderate to severe ACR (p = 0.0018) in heart transplant patients. The AlloMap test provides molecular insights into a patient's risk for ACR by distilling the aggregate expression levels of its informative genes into a single score on a scale of 0 to 40. The selection of a score as a threshold value for clinical decision-making is based on its associated negative predictive value (NPV), which ranges from 98 to 99% for values in three post-transplant periods: >2 to ≤6 months, > 6to ≤ 12 months, and >12 months. Scores below the threshold value rule out ACR, while those above suggest increased ACR risk. Incorporating the AlloMap test into immunomonitoring protocols provides an opportunity for clinicians to enhance patient care and to define its role in immunodiagnostic strategies to optimize the clinical outcomes of heart transplant recipients. This summary highlights the concepts presented in an invited presentation at a conference focused on Immunodiagnostics and Immunomonitoring: From Research to Clinic, in San Diego, CA on November 7, 2006

Socioeconomic disparities in the use of cardioprotective medications among patients with peripheral artery disease

ObjectivesThe aim of this paper was to examine disparities in the use of cardioprotective medications in the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) by socioeconomic status (SES).BackgroundPAD is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and is more prevalent among those of lower SES. However, the use of guideline-recommended secondary preventive measures for the treatment of PAD across diverse income subgroups and the influence of practice site on potential treatment disparities by SES are unknown.MethodsWithin the National Cardiovascular Disease Registry (NCDR) PINNACLE Registry, 62,690 patients with PAD were categorized into quintiles of SES, as defined by the median income of each patient's zip code. The association between SES and secondary preventive treatment with antiplatelet and statin medications was evaluated using sequential hierarchical modified Poison models, adjusting first for practice site and then for clinical variables.ResultsCompared with the highest SES quintile (median income: >$60,868), PAD patients in the lowest SES quintile (median income: <$34,486) were treated less often with statins (72.5% vs. 85.8%; RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.86; p < 0.001) and antiplatelet therapy (79.0% vs. 84.6%; RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91 to 0.94; p < 0.001). These differences were markedly attenuated after controlling for practice site variation: statins (adjusted RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.99; p = 0.003) and antiplatelet therapy (adjusted RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.00; p = 0.012). Additional adjustment for patients' clinical characteristics had minimal impact, with slight further attenuation with statins (adjusted RR: 1.00: 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; p = 0.772) and antiplatelet therapy (adjusted RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; p = 0.878).ConclusionsAmong PAD patients, the practice site at which patients received care largely explained the observed SES differences in treatment with guideline-recommended secondary preventive medications. Future efforts to reduce treatment disparities in these vulnerable populations should target systems improvement at practices serving high proportions of patients with low SES