936 resultados para Peter W. Williams


Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND Diabetes mellitus and angiographic coronary artery disease complexity are intertwined and unfavorably affect prognosis after percutaneous coronary interventions, but their relative impact on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains controversial. This study determined drug-eluting stents outcomes in relation to diabetic status and coronary artery disease complexity as assessed by the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score. METHODS AND RESULTS In a patient-level pooled analysis from 4 all-comers trials, 6081 patients were stratified according to diabetic status and according to the median SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 2 years. Diabetes mellitus was present in 1310 patients (22%), and new-generation drug-eluting stents were used in 4554 patients (75%). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 173 diabetics (14.5%) and 436 nondiabetic patients (9.9%; P<0.001). In adjusted Cox regression analyses, SYNTAX score and diabetes mellitus were both associated with the primary end point (P<0.001 and P=0.028, respectively; P for interaction, 0.07). In multivariable analyses, diabetic versus nondiabetic patients had higher risks of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.53; P=0.026) and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.01; P=0.002) but similar risks of cardiac death (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.07; P=0.08) and myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.22; P=0.45), without significant interaction with SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11 for any of the end points. CONCLUSIONS In this population treated with predominantly new-generation drug-eluting stents, diabetic patients were at increased risk for repeat target-lesion revascularization consistently across the spectrum of disease complexity. The SYNTAX score was an independent predictor of 2-year outcomes but did not modify the respective effect of diabetes mellitus. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00297661, NCT00389220, NCT00617084, and NCT01443104.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

OBJECTIVE We endeavored to develop an unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) treatment score (UIATS) model that includes and quantifies key factors involved in clinical decision-making in the management of UIAs and to assess agreement for this model among specialists in UIA management and research. METHODS An international multidisciplinary (neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, clinical epidemiology) group of 69 specialists was convened to develop and validate the UIATS model using a Delphi consensus. For internal (39 panel members involved in identification of relevant features) and external validation (30 independent external reviewers), 30 selected UIA cases were used to analyze agreement with UIATS management recommendations based on a 5-point Likert scale (5 indicating strong agreement). Interrater agreement (IRA) was assessed with standardized coefficients of dispersion (vr*) (vr* = 0 indicating excellent agreement and vr* = 1 indicating poor agreement). RESULTS The UIATS accounts for 29 key factors in UIA management. Agreement with UIATS (mean Likert scores) was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-4.3) per reviewer for both reviewer cohorts; agreement per case was 4.3 (95% CI 4.1-4.4) for panel members and 4.5 (95% CI 4.3-4.6) for external reviewers (p = 0.017). Mean Likert scores were 4.2 (95% CI 4.1-4.3) for interventional reviewers (n = 56) and 4.1 (95% CI 3.9-4.4) for noninterventional reviewers (n = 12) (p = 0.290). Overall IRA (vr*) for both cohorts was 0.026 (95% CI 0.019-0.033). CONCLUSIONS This novel UIA decision guidance study captures an excellent consensus among highly informed individuals on UIA management, irrespective of their underlying specialty. Clinicians can use the UIATS as a comprehensive mechanism for indicating how a large group of specialists might manage an individual patient with a UIA.

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Leopold Bernard Bernstamm

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Leopold Bernard Bernstamm

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F00136

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F00296

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F01118

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F01593

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F02978

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F02979

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F02980

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F02981

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F02982

Relevância:

30.00% 30.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Signatur des Originals: S 36/F02983