Acute coronary syndromes

Mehta et al. do not show any significant difference between early and delayed intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome. In their study, 9.9% of patients in the...

Acute coronary syndromes

Mehta et al. do not show any significant difference between early and delayed intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome. In their study, 9.9% of patients in the...

Syndromes vertigineux en pratique ambulatoire [Dizziness in a general practice]

The symptoms of vertigo are frequent complaints. With the anamnestic features and the quite long and tiresome clinical examination alone, the general practitioner should make the difference between a benign peripheral and a potentially fatal central pathology. A good knowledge of the anamnestic and clinical particularities and the diagnostic manoeuvres of the main types of vertigo allows in about two thirds of the cases to distinguish their origin. If a central origin is suspected or if the etiology is uncertain, the patient should be referred to a neurologist for further examination and radiological investigations.

Indications à la coronarographie en urgence. Partie I: syndromes coronariens aigus avec élévation du segment ST [Indications for urgent coronary angiography. Part I: ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes]

The indications for urgent coronary angiography are stated in the guidelines for treatment of acute coronary syndromes. An invasive approach is considered the treatment of choice for patients presenting with ST elevation myocardial infarction within 12 hours of the beginning of symptoms. In the absence of contraindication, intravenous thrombolysis continues to be a valuable alternative to primary angioplasty within 3 hours of the beginning of clinical symptoms. Urgent coronary angiography continues to be recommended following the failure of thrombolysis, persistent myocardial ischemia after 12 hours of symptoms, recurrent myocardial ischemia following myocardial infarction or in the case of cardiogenic shock.

Safety profile of prasugrel and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: To assess safety up to 1 year of follow-up associated with prasugrel and clopidogrel use in a prospective cohort of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, 2286 patients invasively managed for ACS were enrolled in the multicentre Swiss ACS Bleeding Cohort, among whom 2148 patients received either prasugrel or clopidogrel according to current guidelines. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) preferentially received prasugrel, while those with non-STEMI, a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, age ≥75 years, or weight <60 kg received clopidogrel or reduced dose of prasugrel to comply with the prasugrel label. RESULTS: After adjustment using propensity scores, the primary end point of clinically relevant bleeding events (defined as the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, BARC, type 3, 4 or 5 bleeding) at 1 year, occurred at a similar rate in both patient groups (prasugrel/clopidogrel: 3.8%/5.5%). Stratified analyses in subgroups including patients with STEMI yielded a similar safety profile. After adjusting for baseline variables, no relevant differences in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were observed at 1 year (prasugrel/clopidogrel: cardiac death 2.6%/4.2%, myocardial infarction 2.7%/3.8%, revascularisation 5.9%/6.7%, stroke 1.0%/1.6%). Of note, this study was not designed to compare efficacy between prasugrel and clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: In this large prospective ACS cohort, patients treated with prasugrel according to current guidelines (ie, in patients without cerebrovascular disease, old age or underweight) had a similar safety profile compared with patients treated with clopidogrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SPUM-ACS: NCT01000701; COMFORTABLE AMI: NCT00962416.

Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes

Background: Current guidelines for patients with moderate- or high-risk acute coronary syndromes recommend an early invasive approach with concomitant antithrombotic therapy, including aspirin, clopidogrel, unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. We evaluated the role of thrombin-specific anticoagulation with bivalirudin in such patients. Methods: We assigned 13,819 patients with acute coronary syndromes to one of three antithrombotic regimens: unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or bivalirudin alone. The primary end points were a composite ischemia end point (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia), major bleeding, and the net clinical outcome, defined as the combination of composite ischemia or major bleeding. Results: Bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, as compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, was associated with noninferior 30-day rates of the composite ischemia end point (7.7% and 7.3%, respectively), major bleeding (5.3% and 5.7%), and the net clinical outcome end point (11.8% and 11.7%). Bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, was associated with a noninferior rate of the composite ischemia end point (7.8% and 7.3%, respectively; P = 0.32; relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.24) and significantly reduced rates of major bleeding (3.0% vs. 5.7%; P<0.001; relative risk, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.65) and the net clinical outcome end point (10.1% vs. 11.7%; P = 0.02; relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97). Conclusions: In patients with moderate- or high-risk acute coronary syndromes who were undergoing invasive treatment with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, bivalirudin was associated with rates of ischemia and bleeding that were similar to those with heparin. Bivalirudin alone was associated with similar rates of ischemia and significantly lower rates of bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00093158.)

Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes

Background: Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. Methods: In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P = 0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P = 0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.)