An Invasive vs a Conservative Approach in Elderly Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Elderly (≥ 75 years) patients form a large sub-group of non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) population but are vastly under-represented in trials. Thus, the benefits of an early angiography in the elderly remain unclear. In this systematic review, we compared outcomes of "invasive" and "conservative" strategies of NSTEMI management in elderly patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search of major databases was performed. We included comparative studies of any design that enrolled patients ≥ 75 years, and where outcomes of both strategies of NSTEMI management were available. RESULTS: Among the included studies (3 randomized and 6 observational), there were 6340 patients in the "invasive" group and 13,358 patients in the "conservative" group. The 12-month mortality rate (odds ration [OR], 0.45; p < 0.00001), the 30-day mortality (OR, 0.50; p = 0.0009), and events of stroke (OR, 0.42; p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the invasive group. Major bleeding was higher in the invasive cohort (OR, 1.63; p = 0.03). Analysis of randomised studies showed lower reinfarction with invasive approach at 12 months (p = 0.0001). Significant heterogeneity was noted among studies according to study design. CONCLUSION: The overall benefit with invasive strategy comes from the data of observational studies that are prone to selection bias. We believe that there is a need for a large randomized study in the elderly patients regarding management of NSTEMI.

Pericarditis.

BACKGROUND: Pericarditis is an important diagnosis to consider, along with various other differential diagnoses, in a patient who presents with chest pain. OBJECTIVE: This article describes in detail the common features, management and complications of pericarditis in the general practice setting. DISCUSSION: Characteristic clinical findings in pericarditis include pleuritic chest pain and pericardial friction rub on auscultation of the left lower sternal border. Electrocardiography may reveal diffuse PR-segment depressions and diffuse ST-segment elevations with upward concavity. The most common aetiologies of pericarditis are idiopathic and viral, and the most common treatment for these are nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and colchicine. The complications of pericarditis include pericardial effusion, tamponade and myopericarditis. The presence of effusion, constriction or tamponade can be confirmed on echocardiography. Tamponade is potentially life-threatening and is diagnosed by the clinical findings of decreased blood pressure, elevated jugular venous pressure, muffled heart sounds on auscultation and pulsus paradoxus.

Intracoronary Administration of Thrombolysis for Severe Coronary Artery Ectasia Presenting as an Acute Inferior ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

We present a 75-year-old male with acute inferior ST-elevation myocardial infarction, severe coronary artery ectasia, and large thrombus burden in the right coronary artery to support the use of intracoronary thrombolysis as a second-line therapy for a large thrombus burden in primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Lex parsimoniae.

We present a noteworthy case of dual pathology in a 62-year-old female with recurrent chest pains and extensive cardiac risk factors. From computed tomography coronary angiography, a left anterior descending artery lesion was identified and successfully revascularized with a drug-eluting stent. Due to persistent chest pain, further investigation revealed a descending aortic dissection, which was conservatively managed. This case highlights the potential challenges of diagnosis in dual pathologies and emphasizes initiating appropriate investigations. .

Antihistamines for the common cold.

BACKGROUND: The common cold is an upper respiratory tract infection, most commonly caused by a rhinovirus. It affects people of all age groups and although in most cases it is self limiting, the common cold still causes significant morbidity. Antihistamines are commonly offered over the counter to relieve symptoms for patients affected by the common cold, however there is not much evidence of their efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antihistamines on the common cold. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1948 to July week 4, 2015), EMBASE (2010 to August 2015), CINAHL (1981 to August 2015), LILACS (1982 to August 2015) and Biosis Previews (1985 to August 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using antihistamines as monotherapy for the common cold. We excluded any studies with combination therapy or using antihistamines in patients with an allergic component in their illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs, which were reported in 17 publications (one publication reports on two trials) with 4342 participants (of which 212 were children) suffering from the common cold, both naturally occurring and experimentally induced. The interventions consisted of an antihistamine as monotherapy compared with placebo. In adults there was a short-term beneficial effect of antihistamines on severity of overall symptoms: on day one or two of treatment 45% had a beneficial effect with antihistamines versus 38% with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.92). However, there was no difference between antihistamines and placebo in the mid term (three to four days) to long term (six to 10 days). When evaluating individual symptoms such as nasal congestion, rhinorrhoea and sneezing, there was some beneficial effect of the sedating antihistamines compared to placebo (e.g. rhinorrhoea on day three: mean difference (MD) -0.23, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.06 on a four- or five-point severity scale; sneezing on day three: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.20 on a four-point severity scale), but this effect is clinically non-significant. Adverse events such as sedation were more commonly reported with sedating antihistamines although the differences were not statistically significant. Only two trials included children and the results were conflicting. The majority of the trials had a low risk of bias although some lacked sufficient trial quality information. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antihistamines have a limited short-term (days one and two of treatment) beneficial effect on severity of overall symptoms but not in the mid to long term. There is no clinically significant effect on nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea or sneezing. Although side effects are more common with sedating antihistamines, the difference is not statistically significant. There is no evidence of effectiveness of antihistamines in children.