Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
JAMA Intern Med ; 183(5): 407-415, 2023 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36877502

ABSTRACT

Importance: To our knowledge, no randomized clinical trial has compared the invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Objective: To compare outcomes of invasive and conservative strategies in frail, older patients with NSTEMI at 1 year. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted at 13 Spanish hospitals between July 7, 2017, and January 9, 2021, and included 167 older adult (≥70 years) patients with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥4) and NSTEMI. Data analysis was performed from April 2022 to June 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized to routine invasive (coronary angiography and revascularization if feasible; n = 84) or conservative (medical treatment with coronary angiography for recurrent ischemia; n = 83) strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) from discharge to 1 year. The coprimary end point was the composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, or postdischarge revascularization. Results: The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic when 95% of the calculated sample size had been enrolled. Among the 167 patients included, the mean (SD) age was 86 (5) years, and mean (SD) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 5 (1). While not statistically different, DAOH were about 1 month (28 days; 95% CI, -7 to 62) greater for patients managed conservatively (312 days; 95% CI, 289 to 335) vs patients managed invasively (284 days; 95% CI, 255 to 311; P = .12). A sensitivity analysis stratified by sex did not show differences. In addition, we found no differences in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.74-2.85; P = .28). There was a 28-day shorter survival in the invasive vs conservatively managed group (95% CI, -63 to 7 days; restricted mean survival time analysis). Noncardiac reasons accounted for 56% of the readmissions. There were no differences in the number of readmissions or days spent in the hospital after discharge between groups. Neither were there differences in the coprimary end point of ischemic cardiac events (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.57; P = .78). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of NSTEMI in frail older patients, there was no benefit to a routine invasive strategy in DAOH during the first year. Based on these findings, a policy of medical management and watchful observation is recommended for older patients with frailty and NSTEMI. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03208153.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Frailty , Myocardial Infarction , Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction , Humans , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Conservative Treatment , Aftercare , Pandemics , Angina, Unstable/therapy , Patient Discharge , Coronary Angiography
2.
Am J Cardiol ; 152: 88-93, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34147209

ABSTRACT

Data from previous heart failure (HF) trials suggest that patients with mild symptoms (NYHA II) actually have a poor clinical outcome. However, these studies did not assess clinical stability and rarely included patients in NYHA I. We sought to determine the incidence of short-term clinical progression in supposedly stable HF patients in NYHA I. In addition, we aimed to investigate the predictive value of widely available electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters for short-term disease progression. This is a retrospective study including 153 consecutive patients with HF with reduced and mid-range ejection fraction (HFrEF: LVEF<40%; HFmrEF: LVEF 40-49%) in NYHA I with no history of decompensation within the previous 6 months. All patients underwent comprehensive baseline echocardiographic and electrocardiographic assessment. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, hospitalization and need for intensification of HF treatment within a 12 month follow-up period. The cumulative incidence of HF progression was 17.8%, with a median time to event of 193 days. Death and hospitalization due to HF accounted for three-quarters of the events. QRS duration ≥120ms and mitral regurgitation grade >1 showed to be significant predictors of HF progression (HR: 8.92, p<0.001; and HR: 4.10, p<0.001, respectively). Patients without these risk factors had a low incidence of clinical events (3.8%). In conclusion, almost one in five supposedly stable HF patients in NYHA I experience clinical progression in short-term follow-up. Simple electrocardiographic and echocardiographic predictors may be useful for risk stratification and could help to improve individual HF patient management and outcomes.


Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Mitral Valve Insufficiency/epidemiology , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Asymptomatic Diseases , Disease Progression , Echocardiography , Electrocardiography , Female , Heart Failure/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Mitral Valve Insufficiency/diagnostic imaging , Mitral Valve Insufficiency/physiopathology , Proportional Hazards Models , Risk Factors
3.
Rev. esp. cardiol. (Ed. impr.) ; 72(2): 154-159, feb. 2019. tab, graf
Article in Spanish | IBECS | ID: ibc-182547

ABSTRACT

Introducción y objetivos: Aunque las guías de práctica clínica recomiendan una estrategia invasiva para el infarto agudo de miocardio sin elevación del segmento ST (IAMSEST), en la práctica clínica esta estrategia se infrautiliza en ancianos frágiles. Además estos enfermos habitualmente quedan excluidos de los ensayos clínicos, por lo que la evidencia es escasa. Nuestra hipótesis es que una estrategia invasiva para el anciano con fragilidad y IAMSEST mejorará el pronóstico. Métodos: Se trata de un estudio prospectivo, multicéntrico y aleatorizado que compara una estrategia invasiva frente a una conservadora en ancianos frágiles con IAMSEST. Los criterios de inclusión son: IAMSEST, edad ≥ 70 años y fragilidad definida por al menos 4 criterios de la escala Clinical Frailty Scale. Se aleatorizará a los participantes a una estrategia invasiva (coronariografía y revascularización si se considera anatómicamente indicada) o conservadora (tratamiento médico y coronariografía solo en caso de inestabilidad clínica persistente). El objetivo principal será el número de días vivo fuera del hospital durante el primer año. El objetivo coprincipal será el tiempo hasta la presentación de muerte cardiovascular, reinfarto agudo de miocardio o revascularización tras el alta. El tamaño de la muestra estimado es de 178 pacientes (89 por grupo), asumiendo un incremento del 20% en la proporción de días vivo fuera del hospital con la estrategia invasiva. Resultados: Los resultados del estudio aportarán información novedosa para el tratamiento del anciano frágil con IAMSEST. Conclusiones: Nuestra hipótesis es que una estrategia invasiva mejorará el pronóstico de los pacientes ancianos frágiles con IAMSEST. Si esta hipótesis se confirmara, la situación de fragilidad no debería disuadir al cardiólogo de indicar un tratamiento invasivo. Ensayo registrado en ClinicalTrials.gov (Identificador: NCT03208153)


Introduction and objectives: Although clinical guidelines recommend invasive management in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), this strategy is underused in frail elderly patients in the real world. Furthermore, these patients are underrepresented in clinical trials and therefore the evidence is scarce. Our hypothesis is that an invasive strategy will improve prognosis in elderly frail patients with NSTEMI. Methods: This will be a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, in which the conservative and invasive strategies will be compared in patients meeting all of the following inclusion criteria: NSTEMI diagnosis, age ≥ 70 years, and frailty defined by a category ≥ 4 in the Clinical Frailty Scale. Participants will be randomized to an invasive (coronary angiogram and revascularization if anatomically amenable) or conservative (medical treatment and coronary angiogram only if persistent clinical instability) strategy. The primary endpoint will be the number of days alive out of hospital during the first year. The coprimary endpoint will be the time until the first cardiac event (cardiac death, reinfarction or postdischarge revascularization). We estimate a sample size of 178 patients (89 per arm), considering an increase of 20% in the proportion of days alive out of hospital with the invasive management. Results: The results of this study will add important knowledge to inform the management of frail elderly patients hospitalized with NSTEMI. Conclusions: We hypothesize that the invasive strategy will improve outcomes in frail elderly patients with NSTEMI. If this is confirmed, frailty status should not dissuade physicians from implementing an invasive management strategy. Clinical trial registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov .Identifier: NCT03208153


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Frailty/complications , Coronary Angiography/statistics & numerical data , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Prospective Studies , Frail Elderly/statistics & numerical data , Myocardial Revascularization/statistics & numerical data
4.
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) ; 72(2): 154-159, 2019 Feb.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29525724

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Although clinical guidelines recommend invasive management in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), this strategy is underused in frail elderly patients in the real world. Furthermore, these patients are underrepresented in clinical trials and therefore the evidence is scarce. Our hypothesis is that an invasive strategy will improve prognosis in elderly frail patients with NSTEMI. METHODS: This will be a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial, in which the conservative and invasive strategies will be compared in patients meeting all of the following inclusion criteria: NSTEMI diagnosis, age ≥ 70 years, and frailty defined by a category ≥ 4 in the Clinical Frailty Scale. Participants will be randomized to an invasive (coronary angiogram and revascularization if anatomically amenable) or conservative (medical treatment and coronary angiogram only if persistent clinical instability) strategy. The primary endpoint will be the number of days alive out of hospital during the first year. The coprimary endpoint will be the time until the first cardiac event (cardiac death, reinfarction or postdischarge revascularization). We estimate a sample size of 178 patients (89 per arm), considering an increase of 20% in the proportion of days alive out of hospital with the invasive management. RESULTS: The results of this study will add important knowledge to inform the management of frail elderly patients hospitalized with NSTEMI. CONCLUSIONS: We hypothesize that the invasive strategy will improve outcomes in frail elderly patients with NSTEMI. If this is confirmed, frailty status should not dissuade physicians from implementing an invasive management strategy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.Identifier: NCT03208153.


Subject(s)
Conservative Treatment , Frail Elderly , Non-ST Elevated Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Aged , Coronary Angiography , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Myocardial Revascularization , Prospective Studies , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Sample Size , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...