El puntaje de Framingham ayudaría en la estratificación del riesgo de pacientes con ergometría positiva y SPECT normal / The Framingham score could help in risk stratification of patients with positive ergometry and normal SPECT

Antecedentes. El valor pronóstico de una ergometría positiva en el contexto de imágenes tomográficas de perfusión miocárdica de estrés y reposo (SPECT) normales no está bien establecido. Objetivos. Documentar la incidencia de infarto, muerte y revascularización coronaria en pacientes con una ergometría positiva de riesgo intermedio e imágenes de perfusión SPECT normales, y explorar el potencial valor del puntaje de riesgo de Framingham en la estratificación pronóstica de estos pacientes. Métodos. Cohorte retrospectiva integrada por pacientes que habían presentado síntomas o hallazgos electrocardiográficos compatibles con enfermedad arterial coronaria durante la prueba de esfuerzo, con criterios de riesgo intermedio en la puntuación de Duke y perfusión miocárdica SPECT normal. Fueron identificados a partir de la base de datos del laboratorio de cardiología nuclear del Instituto de Cardiología y Cirugía Cardiovascular de la ciudad de Posadas, Argentina. Resultados. Fueron elegibles 217 pacientes. El seguimiento fue de 3 1,5 años. La sobrevida libre de eventos (muerte,infarto de miocardio no fatal, angioplastia coronaria o cirugía de bypass de arteria coronaria) a uno, tres y cinco años fue significativamente menor (Log-rank test, p= 0,001) en el grupo con puntaje de Framingham alto o muy alto (77, 71y 59 %, respectivamente) que en el grupo de puntaje bajo o intermedio (89, 87 y 83 %). Tomando como referencia a los pacientes con riesgo bajo en el puntaje de Framingham, luego de ajustar por edad, sexo y puntaje de Duke, los pacientes categorizados en los estratos alto y muy alto riesgo del puntaje de Framingham presentaron una incidencia del evento combinado cercana al triple (hazard ratio [HR] 2,81; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95 % 0,91 a 8,72; p= 0,07 y HR 3,61;IC 95 % 1,23 a 10,56; p= 0,019 respectivamente). Conclusiones. La estimación de riesgo con el puntaje de Framingham sería de ayuda en la estratificación pronóstica de los pacientes con ergometría positiva y SPECT normal. (AU)

Background. The prognostic value of positive exercise testing with normal SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging is not well established. Objectives. To document the incidence of infarction, death, and coronary revascularization in patients with a positive intermediate-risk exercise test and normal SPECT perfusion images and to explore the potential value of the Framingham Risk Score in the prognostic stratification of these patients. Methods. A retrospective cohort comprised patients who presented symptoms or electrocardiographic findings compatible with coronary artery disease during the stress test, with intermediate risk criteria in the Duke score and normal SPECT myocardial perfusion. They were identified from the database of the nuclear cardiology laboratory of the Instituto de Cardiología y Cirugía Cardiovascular of Posadas, Argentina. Results. 217 patients were eligible. Follow-up was 3 1.5 years. Event-free survival (death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary angioplasty, or coronary artery bypass surgery) at one, three, and five years was significantly lower (Log-ranktest, p: 0.001) in the group with a score of Framingham high or very high (77, 71 and 59 %, respectively) than in the lowor intermediate score group (89, 87 and 83 %). Taking as reference the low-risk patients in the Framingham score, after adjusting for age, sex, and Duke score, the patients categorized in the high-risk and very high-risk strata showed about three times higher incidence of the combined event (hazard ratio [HR] 2.81; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.91 to 8.72;p=0.07 and HR 3.61; 95 % CI 1.23 to 10.56; p=0.019 respectively). Conclusions. Risk estimation with the Framingham score would be helpful in the prognostic stratification of patients with positive exercise testing and normal SPECT. (AU)

El dilema clínico frente a los pacientes con ergometría positiva y prueba de perfusión miocárdica con SPECT normal / The clinical dilemma facing patients with positive stress test and normal SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging

La evaluación de la perfusión miocárdica con SPECT combina una prueba de esfuerzo (ergometría o estrés farmacológico) junto a imágenes de perfusión con radioisótopos. Este estudio es útil para establecer el diagnóstico de enfermedad arterial coronaria, estratificar el riesgo de infarto y tomar decisiones terapéuticas. Un resultado normal aporta un alto valor predictivo negativo, es decir, una muy baja probabilidad de que el paciente presente eventos cardiovasculares. El hallazgo de signos de isquemia en la ergometría podría poner en jaque el valor predictivo negativo de una perfusión normal. En presencia de este resultado, el paso siguiente es evaluar los predictores de riesgo en la ergometría, el riesgo propio del paciente en función de los antecedentes clínicos y el puntaje cálcico coronario, cuando este se encuentra disponible. Ante la presencia concomitante de otros marcadores de riesgo se sugiere completar la evaluación con un estudio anatómico.El uso de nuevas tecnologías podría mejorar la precisión en la predicción de eventos. (AU)

Assessment of myocardial perfusion with SPECT combines a stress test (ergometry or pharmacological stress) with radioisotope perfusion imaging. This test is helpful to diagnose coronary artery disease, stratify the risk of heart attack, and make therapeutic decisions. A normal result provides a high negative predictive value; therefore, the probability of cardiovascular events is very low. Signs of ischemia on an ergometry could jeopardize the negative predictive value of normal perfusion. In this clinical setting, the next step is to evaluate the risk predictors in the stress test, the individual risk based on the clinical history, and the coronary calcium score when available. Given the simultaneous presence of other risk markers,completing the evaluation with an anatomical study is suggested. The use of new technologies could improve the accuracy of event prediction. (AU)

Incidencia y factores de riesgo de endofugas en el tratamiento endovascular de los aneurismas aórticos / [Incidence and risk factors of endoleak in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair].

BACKGROUND: endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reduces morbidity and hospital stay compaired with open surgical repair. Endoleak is a common complication of the procedure. The resulting increase of pressure within the sac may expand the aneurysm with the following risk of rupture. The aim of this study was to recognize the incidence of endoleak in tomographic controls of the patients who underwent endovascular repair at our hospital as well as identify the risk factors associated with this complication. METHODS: all consecutive patients who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair at our hospital between 2008, February until 2012, February were restrospectively enrolled in the study, excluding those who were lost at follow-up. 43 patients were included, aged 70.5 ± 6 (men: 88

). The endpoint was endoleak incidence at 1, 6, 12th months after the intervention in the control tomography, and its association with underlying risk factors: hypertension, Smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary desease and the diameter of the aneurysm. RESULTS: eleven (11

). All were infrarrenal aortic aneurysms. The anteroposterior diameter of the aneurysm (more than 60 mm) showed a trend toward statistical significance as a risk factor (30

; p:0.073). No relationship was found with gender, age, COPD, smoking or hypertension. CONCLUSION: endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair is a common complication. The size of the aneurysm might be a risk factor of the event.

Readmission in unstable angina

To determine the characteristics of patients re-admitted after unstable angina (UA) pectoris, 120 consecutive patients hospitalized due to primary UA pectoris were prospectively studied 22 +/- 3 months after discharge. The patients were grouped based on the readmission rate. Those in group A (50) had recurrent admissions (mean 2.6, range 2 to 5). Seventy patients (group B) did not have readmissions during the follow-up period. All patients underwent coronary angiogram and symptoms-limited exercise stress test before discharge. The univariate characteristics for readmission were: age over 70 years (p = 0.02), nondiagnostic exercise stress testing (p = 0.03), angiographically diffuse coronary artery disease (p = 0.004), and non-interventional management (P < 0.001). Patients readmitted had increased incidence of myocardial infarction (p = 0.004) but similar survival at 2 years. By regression analysis, important variables for readmission were non-interventional management (Chi-Square = 7.6, p = 0.01), non diagnostic treadmill test (Chi-Square = 6.9, p = 0.03) and diffuse coronary artery disease (Chi-Square = 6.2, p = 0.04). It is concluded that in the interventional era the most important factor for readmission after primary UA pectoris is non-interventional management. Coronary revascularization should not be denied solely on the basis of age