We performed a double-blind randomized trial comparing high doses of subcutaneous heparin (12,500 units every 12 hours) with low doses (5000 units every 12 hours) for 10 days in the prevention of left ventricular mural thrombosis in 221 patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction. Left ventricular mural thrombosis was observed by two-dimensional echocardiography on the 10th day after infarction in 10 of 95 patients (11 percent) in the high-dose group and in 28 of 88 patients (32 percent) in the low-dose group (P = 0.0004). One patient in the high-dose group and four in the low-dose group had nonhemorrhagic strokes (P = 0.17). One patient in the low-dose group had a fatal pulmonary embolism. There was no difference in the frequency of hemorrhagic complications, which occurred in six patients in the high-dose group and four in the low-dose group. The mean (+/- SEM) plasma heparin concentration was 0.18 +/- 0.017 U per milliliter in the high-dose group and 0.01 +/- 0.005 U per milliliter in the low-dose group (P less than 0.0001). In the high-dose group, the mean plasma heparin concentration was 0.10 +/- 0.029 U per milliliter among patients with abnormal two-dimensional echocardiograms, as compared with 0.19 +/- 0.019 U per milliliter among patients with normal echocardiograms (P = 0.01). We conclude that heparin administered subcutaneously in a dosage of 12,500 units every 12 hours to patients with acute anterior transmural myocardial infarction is more effective than a lower dosage (5000 units every 12 hours) in preventing left ventricular mural thrombosis.
Purpose: Nasal septoplasty is a surgical procedure offered to patients with chronic snoring secondary to nasal obstruction. We describe a case of cardiogenic shock following the administration of metoprolol to treat hypertension, (likely) induced by systemic absorption of topical epinephrine used during a routine nasal septoplasty. Clinical features:A 29-yr-old male, with no significant medical history, was scheduled for nasal septoplasty for mild nasal obstruction. Following routine anesthetic induction, cotton balls, soaked with epinephrine (1:1000), were applied to the nasal mucosa. The patient became hypertensive with a blood pressure of 207/123 mmHg. Intravenous metoprolol was administered. Severe pulmonary edema ensued, with resulting hypoxic respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock. The patient was transferred to a tertiary care facility for percutaneous cardiopulmonary bypass. After five days of cardiopulmonary bypass support and six weeks of intensive care monitoring, the patient's cardiac status returned to normal limits. Conclusion:A hypertensive response, following systemically absorbed topical vasoconstrictors, including both phenylephrine and epinephrine, can be associated with dire consequences when treated with a beta-adrenergic blocking drug and, possibly, calcium channel blockers. To prevent severe complications including; pulmonary edema, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and, possibly, death, these drug interactions need to be appreciated.
IMPORTANCE Although the heart team approach is recommended in revascularization guidelines, the frequency with which heart team decisions differ from those of the original treating interventional cardiologist is unknown. OBJECTIVE To examine the difference in decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist for the treatment of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this cross-sectional study, 245 consecutive patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were recruited from 1 high-volume tertiary care referral center (185 patients were enrolled through a screening process, and 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled from the center's database). A total of 237 patients were included in the final virtual heart team analysis. Treatment decisions (which comprised coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and medication therapy) were made by the original treating interventional cardiologists between March 15, 2012, and October 20, 2014. These decisions were then compared with pooled-majority treatment decisions made by 8 blinded heart teams using structured online case presentations between October 1, 2017, and October 15, 2018. The randomized members of the heart teams comprised experts from 3 domains, with each team containing 1 noninvasive cardiologist, 1 interventional cardiologist, and 1 cardiovascular surgeon. Cases in which all 3 of the heart team members disagreed and cases in which procedural discordance occurred (eg, 2 members chose coronary artery bypass grafting and 1 member chose percutaneous coronary intervention) were discussed in a face-to-face heart team review in October 2018 to obtain pooled-majority decisions. Data were analyzed from May 6, 2019, to April 22, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The Cohen κ coefficient between the treatment recommendation from the heart team and the treatment recommendation from the original treating interventional cardiologist. RESULTS Among 234 of 237 patients (98.7%) in the analysis for whom complete data were available, the mean (SD) age was 67.8 (10.9) years; 176 patients (75.2%) were male, and 191 patients (81.4%) had stenosis in 3 epicardial coronary vessels. A total of 71 differences (30.3%; 95% CI, 24.5%-36.7%) in treatment decisions between the heart team and the original treating interventional cardiologist occurred, with a Cohen κ of 0.478 (95% CI, 0.336-0.540; P = .006). The heart team decision was more frequently unanimous when it was concordant with the decision of the original treating interventional cardiologist (109 of 163 cases [66.9%]) compared with when it was discordant (28 of 71 cases [39.4%]; P < .001). When the heart team agreed with the original (continued) Key Points Question Do treatments recommended by a heart team differ from those recommended by an original treating interventional cardiologist for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 245 patients with multivessel co...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.