Echocardiographic predictors of early in-hospital heart failure during first ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: does myocardial performance index and left atrial volume improve diagnosis over conventional parameters of left ventricular function?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been considered a major determinant of early outcome in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Myocardial performance index (MPI) has been associated to early evolution in AMI in a heterogeneous population, including non ST-elevation or previous AMI. Left atrial volume has been related with late evolution after AMI. We evaluated the independent role of clinical and echocardiographic variables including LVEF, MPI and left atrial volume in predicting early in-hospital congestive heart failure (CHF) specifically in patients with a first isolated ST-elevation AMI.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Echocardiography was performed within 30 hours of chest pain in 95 patients with a first ST-elevation AMI followed during the first week of hospitalization. Several clinical and echocardiographic variables were analyzed. CHF was defined as Killip class ≥ II. Multivariate regression analysis was used to select independent predictor of in-hospital CHF.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Early in-hospital CHF occurred in 29 (31%) of patients. LVEF ≤ 0.45 was the single independent and highly significant predictor of early CHF among other clinical and echocardiographic variables (odds ratio 17.0; [95% CI 4.1 - 70.8]; p < 0.0001). MPI alone could not predict CHF in first ST-elevation AMI patients. Left atrial volume was not associated with early CHF in such patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>For patients with first, isolated ST-elevation AMI, LVEF assessed by echocardiography still constitutes a strong and accurate independent predictor of early in-hospital CHF, superior to isolated MPI and left atrial volume in this particular subset of patients.</p

Diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal chest pain: design of a multi-purpose trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Acute chest pain is a major health problem all over the western world. Active approaches are directed towards diagnosis and treatment of potentially life threatening conditions, especially acute coronary syndrome/ischemic heart disease. However, according to the literature, chest pain may also be due to a variety of extra-cardiac disorders including dysfunction of muscles and joints of the chest wall or the cervical and thoracic part of the spine. The diagnostic approaches and treatment options for this group of patients are scarce and formal clinical studies addressing the effect of various treatments are lacking.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We present an ongoing trial on the potential usefulness of chiropractic diagnosis and treatment in patients dismissed from an acute chest pain clinic without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. The aims are to determine the proportion of patients in whom chest pain may be of musculoskeletal rather than cardiac origin and to investigate the decision process of a chiropractor in diagnosing these patients; further, to examine whether chiropractic treatment can reduce pain and improve physical function when compared to advice directed towards promoting self-management, and, finally, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of these procedures. This study will include 300 patients discharged from a university hospital acute chest pain clinic without a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome or any other obvious cardiac or non-cardiac disease. After completion of the clinic's standard cardiovascular diagnostic procedures, trial patients will be examined according to a standardized protocol including a) a self-report questionnaire; b) a semi-structured interview; c) a general health examination; and d) a specific manual examination of the muscles and joints of the neck, thoracic spine, and thorax in order to determine whether the pain is likely to be of musculoskeletal origin. To describe the patients status with regards to ischemic heart disease, and to compare and indirectly validate the musculoskeletal diagnosis, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy is performed in all patients 2–4 weeks following discharge. Descriptive statistics including parametric and non-parametric methods will be applied in order to compare patients with and without musculoskeletal chest pain in relation to their scintigraphic findings. The decision making process of the chiropractor will be elucidated and reconstructed using the CART method. Out of the 300 patients 120 intended patients with suspected musculoskeletal chest pain will be randomized into one of two groups: a) a course of chiropractic treatment (therapy group) of up to ten treatment sessions focusing on high velocity, low amplitude manipulation of the cervical and thoracic spine, mobilisation, and soft tissue techniques. b) Advice promoting self-management and individual instructions focusing on posture and muscle stretch (advice group). Outcome measures are pain, physical function, overall health, self-perceived treatment effect, and cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study may potentially demonstrate that a chiropractor is able to identify a subset of patients suffering from chest pain predominantly of musculoskeletal origin among patients discharged from an acute chest pain clinic with no apparent cardiac condition. Furthermore knowledge about the benefits of manual treatment of patients with musculoskeletal chest pain will inform clinical decision and policy development in relation to clinical practice.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00462241 and NCT00373828</p

An economic model of long-term use of celecoxib in patients with osteoarthritis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of the cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex, Pfizer Inc, USA) have produced conflicting results. The recent controversy over the cardiovascular (CV) risks of rofecoxib and other coxibs has renewed interest in the economic profile of celecoxib, the only coxib now available in the United States. The objective of our study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of celecoxib compared with nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nsNSAIDs) in a population of 60-year-old osteoarthritis (OA) patients with average risks of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) complications who require chronic daily NSAID therapy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used decision analysis based on data from the literature to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a modified societal perspective over patients' lifetimes, with outcomes expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity tests were performed to evaluate the impacts of advancing age, CV thromboembolic event risk, different analytic horizons and alternate treatment strategies after UGI adverse events.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our main findings were: 1) the base model incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for celecoxib versus nsNSAIDs was $31,097 per QALY; 2) the ICER per QALY was$19,309 for a model in which UGI ulcer and ulcer complication event risks increased with advancing age; 3) the ICER per QALY was $17,120 in sensitivity analyses combining serious CV thromboembolic event (myocardial infarction, stroke, CV death) risks with base model assumptions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our model suggests that chronic celecoxib is cost-effective versus nsNSAIDs in a population of 60-year-old OA patients with average risks of UGI events.</p