Coronary artery disease (CAD) is not uncommon among lung transplant candidates. Several small, single-center series have suggested that short-term outcomes are acceptable in selected patients who undergo coronary revascularization prior to, or concomitant with, lung transplantation. Our objective was to evaluate perioperative and intermediate-term outcomes in this patient population at our institution. We performed a retrospective, observational cohort analysis of 898 lung transplant recipients between 1997 and 2010. Pediatric, multivisceral, lobar or repeat transplantations were excluded, resulting in 791 patients for comparative analysis, of which 49 (median age 62, 79.6% bilateral transplant) underwent concurrent coronary artery bypass and 38 (median age 64, 63.2% bilateral transplant) received preoperative percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Perioperative mortality, overall unadjusted survival and adjusted hazard ratio for cumulative risk of death were similar among both revascularization groups as well as controls. The rate of postoperative major adverse cardiac events was also similar among groups; however, concurrent coronary artery bypass was associated with longer postoperative length of stay, more time in the intensive care unit and more postoperative days requiring ventilator support. These results suggest that patients with CAD need not be excluded from lung transplantation. Preferential consideration should be given to preoperative PCI when feasible.

BACKGROUND: Although increased myocardial salvage and reduced mortality are associated with timely thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction, some patients still experience delays in treatment. OBJECTIVES: To examine treatment times in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy and to determine whether delays in treatment are associated with mode of transportation to the hospital, age, sex, or race. METHODS: Medical records of 176 patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy at a community hospital were reviewed and analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Median times for the interval between arrival at the hospital and acquisition of a diagnostic electrocardiogram (door-to-electrocardiography time) and the interval between arrival and start of thrombolytic therapy (door-to-drug time) were 6 minutes and 34 minutes, respectively. However, 76.1% of the patients met the recommendation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association of door-to-electrocardiography time of 10 minutes, and 47.2% met the recommendation of door-to-drug time of 30 minutes or less. Door-to-drug times did not differ significantly according to race or mode of transportation to the hospital. Door-to-electrocardiography and electrocardiography-to-drug times were significantly longer for older patients than for younger patients (P = .005 and P < .001, respectively), and electrocardiography-to-drug times were significantly longer for females than for males (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: With increased emphasis on recognition and rapid treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction at highest risk for delays in treatment, that is, women and the elderly, benefits of thrombolytic therapy might be maximized.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract