An examination of factors influencing the choice of therapy for patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND: A diverse range of factors influence clinicians' decisions regarding the allocation of patients to different treatments for coronary artery disease in routine cardiology clinics. These include demographic measures, risk factors, co-morbidities, measures of objective cardiac disease, symptom reports and functional limitations. This study examined which of these factors differentiated patients receiving angioplasty from medication; bypass surgery from medication; and bypass surgery from angioplasty. METHODS: Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted on patient data from 214 coronary artery disease patients who at the time of recruitment had been received a clinical assessment and were reviewed by their cardiologist in order to determine the form of treatment they were to undergo: 70 would receive/continue medication, 71 were to undergo angioplasty and 73 were to undergo bypass surgery. RESULTS: Analyses differentiating patients receiving angioplasty from medication produced 9 significant univariate predictors, of which 5 were also multivariately significant (left anterior descending artery disease, previous coronary interventions, age, hypertension and frequency of angina). The analyses differentiating patients receiving surgery from angioplasty produced 12 significant univariate predictors, of which 4 were multivariately significant (limitations in mobility range, circumflex artery disease, previous coronary interventions and educational level). The analyses differentiating patients receiving surgery from medication produced 14 significant univariate predictors, of which 4 were multivariately significant (left anterior descending artery disease, previous cerebral events, limitations in mobility range and circumflex artery disease). CONCLUSION: Variables emphasised in clinical guidelines are clearly involved in coronary artery disease treatment decisions. However, variables beyond these may also be important factors when therapy decisions are undertaken thus their roles require further investigation

A randomised trial of intrapericardial bleomycin for malignant pericardial effusion with lung cancer (JCOG9811)

Safety and efficacy of intrapericardial (ipc) instillation of bleomycin (BLM) following pericardial drainage in patients with malignant pericardial effusion (MPE) remain unclear. Patients with pathologically documented lung cancer, who had undergone pericardial drainage for MPE within 72 h of enrolment, were randomised to either arm A (observation alone after drainage) or arm B (ipc BLM at 15 mg, followed by additional ipc BLM 10 mg every 48 h). The drainage tube was removed when daily drainage was 20 ml or less. The primary end point was survival with MPE control (effusion failure-free survival, EFFS) at 2 months. Eighty patients were enrolled, and 79 were eligible. Effusion failure-free survival at 2 months was 29% in arm A and 46% in arm B (one-sided P=0.086 by Fisher's exact test). Arm B tended to favour EFFS, with a hazard ratio of 0.64 (95% confidence interval: 0.40–1.03, one-sided P=0.030 by log-rank test). No significant differences in the acute toxicities or complications were observed. The median survival was 79 days and 119 days in arm A and arm B, respectively. This medium-sized trial failed to show statistical significance in the primary end point. Although ipc BLM appeared safe and effective in the management of MPE, the therapeutic advantage seems modest