The diagnostic accuracy of pharmacological stress echocardiography for the assessment of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines state that "dobutamine stress echo has substantially higher sensitivity than vasodilator stress echo for detection of coronary artery stenosis" while the European Society of Cardiology guidelines and the European Association of Echocardiography recommendations conclude that "the two tests have very similar applications". Who is right?</p> <p>Aim</p> <p>To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of dobutamine versus dipyridamole stress echocardiography through an evidence-based approach.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From PubMed search, we identified all papers with coronary angiographic verification and head-to-head comparison of dobutamine stress echo (40 mcg/kg/min ± atropine) versus dipyridamole stress echo performed with state-of-the art protocols (either 0.84 mg/kg in 10' plus atropine, or 0.84 mg/kg in 6' without atropine). A total of 5 papers have been found. Pooled weight meta-analysis was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>the 5 analyzed papers recruited 435 patients, 299 with and 136 without angiographically assessed coronary artery disease (quantitatively assessed stenosis > 50%). Dipyridamole and dobutamine showed similar accuracy (87%, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 83–90, vs. 84%, CI, 80–88, p = 0.48), sensitivity (85%, CI 80–89, vs. 86%, CI 78–91, p = 0.81) and specificity (89%, CI 82–94 vs. 86%, CI 75–89, p = 0.15).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When state-of-the art protocols are considered, dipyridamole and dobutamine stress echo have similar accuracy, specificity and – most importantly – sensitivity for detection of CAD. European recommendations concluding that "<it>dobutamine and vasodilators (at appropriately high doses) are equally potent ischemic stressors for inducing wall motion abnormalities in presence of a critical coronary artery stenosis</it>" are evidence-based.</p

Contemporary Art and Multicultural Education

This volume is a sourcebook for educators that provides theoretical foundations, resources, primary texts and suggested readings, as well as lesson plans that use multicultural, contemporary art to explore topical subjects. The lessons are designed for high school students from diverse backgrounds. Includes numerous artists’ statements (in English and Spanish) and a list of arts and media organisations. Biographical notes. Annotated bibliography 13 p. 74 bibl. ref

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit