Repatriation to referral hospital after reperfusion of STEMI patients transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights of a Canadian regional STEMI care system.

BACKGROUND: In regional systems of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care, patients presenting to hospitals without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are transferred to PCI-capable hospitals for primary PCI. Repatriation, a practice whereby such patients are transferred back to non-PCI referral hospitals after reperfusion is prevalent in many jurisdictions, yet little is known of this practice and its safety. METHODS: We studied 979 consecutive STEMI patients transported from the emergency department and catchment area of two non-PCI hospitals in Ontario, Canada to a regional PCI-hospital for primary PCI between January 2008 and June 2014. Logistic regression modeling was performed to determine factors associated with delayed repatriation beyond 24 hours and to evaluate the association between repatriation and index-admission mortality. RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifteen (83.2%) patients were repatriated with 524 (65.2%) patients repatriated within 24 hours. Factors independently associated with delayed repatriation included systolic blood pressure (OR 1.03 per 5 mmHg decrease, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P= .04), requirement for mechanical ventilation (OR 24.9, 95% CI 5.4-115.3, P< .0001), ventricular arrhythmia (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.3-6.6, P= .01), infarct-related artery (P= .03), final TIMI flow grade (P= .01) and access-site complications (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.04-5.4, P= .04). After repatriation, 9 (1.3%) patients returned to the PCI-hospital for urgent care, and 16 (2.0%) died during index-admission. After adjustment, repatriation was not associated with increase in index-admission mortality (adjusted OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.16-1.32, P= .15). CONCLUSIONS: In a regional STEMI care system in Ontario, Canada, patients are routinely repatriated to non-PCI hospitals after primary PCI. This practice was associated with very low and acceptable rate of return to the PCI-hospital during index-admission without an adverse impact on short-term outcomes.

Rates and predictors of risk of stroke and its subtypes in diabetes: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Small vessel disease is reported to be a more common cause of ischaemic stroke in people with diabetes than in others. However, population based studies have shown no difference between those with and those without diabetes in the subtypes of stroke. We determined the rates and predictors of risk of stroke and its subtypes in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) trial. METHODS: 9795 patients aged 50-75 years with type 2 diabetes were followed up for a median of 5 years. Annual rates were derived by the Kaplan-Meier method and independent predictors of risk by Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: The annual rate of stroke was 6.7 per 1000 person years; 82% were ischaemic and caused by small artery disease (36%), large artery disease (17%) and embolism from the heart (13%); 10% were haemorrhagic. Among the strongest baseline predictors of ischaemic or unknown stroke were age (60-65 years, HR 1.98; >65 years, HR 2.35) and a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (HR 2.06). Other independent baseline predictors were male sex, smoking, history of hypertension, ischaemic heart disease, nephropathy, systolic blood pressure and blood low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, HbA(1c) and fibrinogen. A history of peripheral vascular disease, low high density lipoprotein, age and history of hypertension were associated with large artery ischaemic stroke. A history of diabetic retinopathy, LDL cholesterol, male sex, systolic blood pressure, smoking, diabetes duration and a history of stroke or TIA were associated with small artery ischaemic stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Older people with a history of stroke were at highest risk of stroke, but the prognosis and prognostic factors of subtypes were heterogeneous. The results will help clinicians quantify the absolute risk of stroke and its subtypes for typical diabetes patients.

Benefits and safety of long-term fenofibrate therapy in people with type 2 diabetes and renal impairment: the FIELD Study.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetic patients with moderate renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) are at particular cardiovascular risk. Fenofibrate's safety in these patients is an issue because it may elevate plasma creatinine. Furthermore, guidelines regarding fenofibrate dosing in renal impairment vary internationally. We investigated fenofibrate's effects on cardiovascular and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) events, according to eGFR, in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) Study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Type 2 diabetic patients (aged 50-75 years) with eGFR ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were randomly allocated to a fixed dose of fenofibrate (200 mg daily) (n = 4,895) or placebo (n = 4,900) for 5 years. Baseline renal function (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation) was grouped by eGFR (30-59, 60-89, and ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). The prespecified outcome was total cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary/carotid revascularization). Serious adverse events and instances of ESRD (plasma creatinine >400 µmol/L, dialysis, renal transplant, or renal death) were recorded. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Overall, fenofibrate reduced total cardiovascular events, compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.80-0.99]; P = 0.035). This benefit was not statistically different across eGFR groupings (P = 0.2 for interaction) (eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2): 0.68 [0.47-0.97], P = 0.035; eGFR ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m(2): 0.85 [0.70-1.02], P = 0.08). ESRD rates were similar between treatment arms, without adverse safety signals of fenofibrate use in renal impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate renal impairment benefit from long-term fenofibrate, without excess drug-related safety concerns compared with those with no or mild renal impairment. Fenofibrate treatment should not be contraindicated in moderate renal impairment, suggesting that current guidelines may be too restrictive.