Comparison of in-hospital mortality for acute myocardial infarction in Switzerland with admission during routine duty hours versus admission during out of hours (insight into the AMIS plus registry).

To improve long-term survival, prompt revascularization of the infarct-related artery should be done in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI); therefore, a large proportion of these patients would be hospitalized during out of hours. The clinical effects of out-of-hours AMI management were already questioned, with conflicting results. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the in-hospital outcome of patients admitted for AMI during out of hours and working hours. All patients with AMI included in the AMIS Plus Registry from January 1, 1997, to March 30, 2006, were analyzed. The working-hours group included patients admitted from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, and the out-of-hours group included patients admitted from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays or weekends. Major cardiac events were defined as cardiovascular death, reinfarction, and stroke. The study primary end points were in-hospital death and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates. A total of 12,480 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 52% admitted during normal working hours, and 48%, during out of hours. Patients admitted during weekdays included more women (28.1% vs 26%; p = 0.009), older patients (65.5 +/- 13 vs 64.1 +/- 13 years; p = 0.0011), less current smokers (40.1% vs 43.5%; p <0.001), and less patients with a history of ischemic heart disease (31.5% vs 34.5%; p = 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients admitted during out of hours had Killip's class III and IV. No differences in terms of in-hospital survival rates between the 2 groups (91.5% vs 91.2%; p = 0.633) or MACE-free survival rates (both 88.5%; p = 1.000) were noted. In conclusion, the outcome of patients with AMI admitted out of hours was the same compared with those with a weekday admission. Of predictors for in-hospital outcome, timing of admission had no significant influence on mortality and/or MACE incidence.

Daptomycin plus fosfomycin versus daptomycin monotherapy in treating MRSA: protocol of a multicentre, randomised, phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION Despite the availability of new antibiotics such as daptomycin, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia continues to be associated with high clinical failure rates. Combination therapy has been proposed as an alternative to improve outcomes but there is a lack of clinical studies. The study aims to demonstrate that combination of daptomycin plus fosfomycin achieves higher clinical success rates in the treatment of MRSA bacteraemia than daptomycin alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A multicentre open-label, randomised phase III study. Adult patients hospitalised with MRSA bacteraemia will be randomly assigned (1:1) to group 1: daptomycin 10 mg/kg/24 h intravenous; or group 2: daptomycin 10 mg/kg/24 h intravenous plus fosfomycin 2 gr/6 g intravenous. The main outcome will be treatment response at week 6 after stopping therapy (test-of-cure (TOC) visit). This is a composite variable with two values: Treatment success: resolution of clinical signs and symptoms (clinical success) and negative blood cultures (microbiological success) at the TOC visit. Treatment failure: if any of the following conditions apply: (1) lack of clinical improvement at 72 h or more after starting therapy; (2) persistent bacteraemia (positive blood cultures on day 7); (3) therapy is discontinued early due to adverse effects or for some other reason based on clinical judgement; (4) relapse of MRSA bacteraemia before the TOC visit; (5) death for any reason before the TOC visit. Assuming a 60% cure rate with daptomycin and a 20% difference in cure rates between the two groups, 103 patients will be needed for each group (α:0.05, ß: 0.2). Statistical analysis will be based on intention to treat, as well as per protocol and safety analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The protocol was approved by the Spanish Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (AEMPS). The sponsor commits itself to publishing the data in first quartile peer-review journals within 12 months of the completion of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01898338.

Regression of cardiac growth in kidney transplant recipients using anti-m-TOR drugs plus RAS blockers: a controlled longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is common in kidney transplant (KT) recipients. LVH is associated with a worse outcome, though m-TOR therapy may help to revert this complication. We therefore conducted a longitudinal study to assess morphological and functional echocardiographic changes after conversion from CNI to m-TOR inhibitor drugs in nondiabetic KT patients who had previously received RAS blockers during the follow-up. METHODS We undertook a 1-year nonrandomized controlled study in 30 non-diabetic KT patients who were converted from calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) to m-TOR therapy. A control group received immunosuppressive therapy based on CNIs. Two echocardiograms were done during the follow-up. RESULTS Nineteen patients were switched to SRL and 11 to EVL. The m-TOR group showed a significant reduction in LVMi after 1 year (from 62 ± 22 to 55 ± 20 g/m2.7; P=0.003, paired t-test). A higher proportion of patients showing LVMi reduction was observed in the m-TOR group (53.3 versus 29.3%, P=0.048) at the study end. In addition, only 56% of the m-TOR patients had LVH at the study end compared to 77% of the control group (P=0.047). A significant change from baseline in deceleration time in early diastole was observed in the m-TOR group compared with the control group (P=0.019). CONCLUSIONS Switching from CNI to m-TOR therapy in non-diabetic KT patients may regress LVH, independently of blood pressure changes and follow-up time. This suggests a direct non-hemodynamic effect of m-TOR drugs on cardiac mass.