Perinatal care at the limit of viability between 22 and 26 completed weeks of gestation in Switzerland. 2011 revision of the Swiss recommendations

Perinatal care of pregnant women at high risk for preterm delivery and of preterm infants born at the limit of viability (22-26 completed weeks of gestation) requires a multidisciplinary approach by an experienced perinatal team. Limited precision in the determination of both gestational age and foetal weight, as well as biological variability may significantly affect the course of action chosen in individual cases. The decisions that must be taken with the pregnant women and on behalf of the preterm infant in this context are complex and have far-reaching consequences. When counselling pregnant women and their partners, neonatologists and obstetricians should provide them with comprehensive information in a sensitive and supportive way to build a basis of trust. The decisions are developed in a continuing dialogue between all parties involved (physicians, midwives, nursing staff and parents) with the principal aim to find solutions that are in the infant's and pregnant woman's best interest. Knowledge of current gestational age-specific mortality and morbidity rates and how they are modified by prenatally known prognostic factors (estimated foetal weight, sex, exposure or nonexposure to antenatal corticosteroids, single or multiple births) as well as the application of accepted ethical principles form the basis for responsible decision-making. Communication between all parties involved plays a central role. The members of the interdisciplinary working group suggest that the care of preterm infants with a gestational age between 22 0/7 and 23 6/7 weeks should generally be limited to palliative care. Obstetric interventions for foetal indications such as Caesarean section delivery are usually not indicated. In selected cases, for example, after 23 weeks of pregnancy have been completed and several of the above mentioned prenatally known prognostic factors are favourable or well informed parents insist on the initiation of life-sustaining therapies, active obstetric interventions for foetal indications and provisional intensive care of the neonate may be reasonable. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 24 0/7 and 24 6/7 weeks, it can be difficult to determine whether the burden of obstetric interventions and neonatal intensive care is justified given the limited chances of success of such a therapy. In such cases, the individual constellation of prenatally known factors which impact on prognosis can be helpful in the decision making process with the parents. In preterm infants with a gestational age between 25 0/7 and 25 6/7 weeks, foetal surveillance, obstetric interventions for foetal indications and neonatal intensive care measures are generally indicated. However, if several prenatally known prognostic factors are unfavourable and the parents agree, primary non-intervention and neonatal palliative care can be considered. All pregnant women with threatening preterm delivery or premature rupture of membranes at the limit of viability must be transferred to a perinatal centre with a level III neonatal intensive care unit no later than 23 0/7 weeks of gestation, unless emergency delivery is indicated. An experienced neonatology team should be involved in all deliveries that take place after 23 0/7 weeks of gestation to help to decide together with the parents if the initiation of intensive care measures appears to be appropriate or if preference should be given to palliative care (i.e., primary non-intervention). In doubtful situations, it can be reasonable to initiate intensive care and to admit the preterm infant to a neonatal intensive care unit (i.e., provisional intensive care). The infant's clinical evolution and additional discussions with the parents will help to clarify whether the life-sustaining therapies should be continued or withdrawn. Life support is continued as long as there is reasonable hope for survival and the infant's burden of intensive care is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the health car...

Distress related to myocardial infarction and cardiovascular outcome: a retrospective observational study

Background During acute coronary syndromes patients perceive intense distress. We hypothesized that retrospective ratings of patients' MI-related fear of dying, helplessness, or pain, all assessed within the first year post-MI, are associated with poor cardiovascular outcome. Methods We studied 304 patients (61 ± 11 years, 85% men) who after a median of 52 days (range 12-365 days) after index MI retrospectively rated the level of distress in the form of fear of dying, helplessness, or pain they had perceived at the time of MI on a numeric scale ranging from 0 ("no distress") to 10 ("extreme distress"). Non-fatal hospital readmissions due to cardiovascular disease (CVD) related events (i.e., recurrent MI, elective and non-elective stent implantation, bypass surgery, pacemaker implantation, cerebrovascular incidents) were assessed at follow-up. The relative CVD event risk was computed for a (clinically meaningful) 2-point increase of distress using Cox proportional hazard models. Results During a median follow-up of 32 months (range 16-45), 45 patients (14.8%) experienced a CVD-related event requiring hospital readmission. Greater fear of dying (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03-1.43), helplessness (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04-1.44), or pain (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.58) were significantly associated with an increased CVD risk without adjustment for covariates. A similarly increased relative risk emerged in patients with an unscheduled CVD-related hospital readmission, i.e., when excluding patients with elective stenting (fear of dying: HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51; helplessness: 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.52; pain: HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.01-1.66). In the fully-adjusted models controlling for age, the number of diseased coronary vessels, hypertension, and smoking, HRs were 1.24 (95% CI 1.04-1.46) for fear of dying, 1.26 (95% CI 1.06-1.50) for helplessness, and 1.26 (95% CI 1.01-1.57) for pain. Conclusions Retrospectively perceived MI-related distress in the form of fear of dying, helplessness, or pain was associated with non-fatal cardiovascular outcome independent of other important prognostic factors.

Non-fatal cardiovascular outcome in patients with posttraumatic stress symptoms caused by myocardial infarction

Objectives Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prospectively increases the risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) independent of other risk factors in otherwise healthy individuals. Between 10% and 20% of patients develop PTSD related to the traumatic experience of myocardial infarction (MI). We investigated the hypothesis that PTSD symptoms caused by MI predict adverse cardiovascular outcome. Methods We studied 297 patients (61 ± 10 years, 83% men) who self-rated PTSD symptoms attributable to a previous index MI. Non-fatal CVD-related hospital readmissions (i.e. recurrent MI, elective and non-elective intracoronary stenting, bypass surgery, pacemaker implantation, cardiac arrhythmia, cerebrovascular event) were assessed at follow-up. Cox proportional hazard models controlled for demographic factors, coronary heart disease severity, major CVD risk factors, cardiac medication, and mental health treatment. Results Forty-three patients (14.5%) experienced an adverse event during a mean follow-up of 2.8 years (range 1.3–3.8). A 10 point higher level in the PTSD symptom score (mean 8.8 ± 9.0, range 0–47) revealed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.42 (95% CI 1.07–1.88) for a CVD-related hospital readmission in the fully adjusted model. A similarly increased risk (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.07–1.97) emerged for patients with a major or unscheduled CVD-related readmission (i.e. when excluding patients with elective stenting). Conclusions Elevated levels of PTSD symptoms caused by MI may adversely impact non-fatal cardiovascular outcome in post-MI patients independent of other important prognostic factors. The possible importance of PTSD symptoms as a novel prognostic psychosocial risk factor in post-MI patients warrants further study.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main disease in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction the AMIS (Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland) plus registry experience

This study sought to assess outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main (LM) disease.

Comparison of biolimus eluted from an erodible stent coating with bare metal stents in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (COMFORTABLE AMI trial): rationale and design

Compared with bare metal stents (BMS), early generation drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the risk of revascularisation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) at the expense of an increased risk of very late stent thrombosis (ST). Durable polymer coatings for controlled drug release have been identified as a potential trigger for these late adverse events and this has led to the development of newer generation DES with durable and biodegradable polymer surface coatings with improved biocompatibility. In a recent all-comers trial, biolimus-eluting stents with a biodegradable polymer surface coating were found to reduce the risk of very late ST by 80% compared with sirolimus-eluting stents with durable polymer, which also translated into a lower risk of cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI) beyond one year.

Comparison of drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

To evaluate safety and effectiveness of early generation drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and to determine whether benefits and risks vary over time.

Interleukin-6, -7, -8 and -10 predict outcome in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock

The IABP-SHOCK-trial was a morbidity-based randomized controlled trial in patients with infarction-related cardiogenic shock (CS), which used the change of the quantified degree of multiorgan failure as determined by APACHE II score over a 4-day period as primary outcome measure. The prospective hypothesis was that adding IABP therapy to "standard care" would improve CS-triggered multi organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). The primary endpoint showed no difference between conventionally managed cardiogenic shock patients and those with IABP support. In an inflammatory marker substudy, we analysed the prognostic value of interleukin (IL)-1β, -6, -7, -8, and -10 in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.