Guidelines on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris (Ending)

Fox, Kim; García, María Ángeles Alonso; Ardissimo, D.; Buszman, Piotr P.; Camici, PG; Crea, Filippo; Daly, Conor; Backer, Guy De; Hjenmdahl, P.; López‐Sendón, José; Marco, Jean; Morais, J; Pepper, John; Sechtem, U; Ml, Simoons; Thygesen, Kristian

doi:10.20996/1819-6446-2007-3-1-69-100

Cited by 22 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 138 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Before the procedure, patients must be carefully screened for factors that preclude ambulatory PCI. Moreover, the referring cardiologists must provide antiplatelet therapy management, patient education, and post-procedure follow-up (4,26,27). In our experience, the feedback from physicians regarding ambulatory PCI was extremely positive.…”

Section: Logistical Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Ambulatory transradial percutaneous coronary intervention: A safe, effective, and cost‐saving strategy

Corvoisier

Gellen

Lesault

et al. 2012

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this prospective, multicenter study was to assess the safety, feasibility, acceptance, and cost of ambulatory transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) under the conditions of everyday practice. Background: Major advances in PCI techniques have considerably reduced the incidence of post‐procedure complications. However, overnight admission still constitutes the standard of care in most interventional cardiology centers. Methods: Eligibility for ambulatory management was assessed in 370 patients with stable angina referred to three high‐volume angioplasty centers. On the basis of pre‐specified clinical and PCI‐linked criteria, 220 patients were selected for ambulatory PCI. Results: The study population included a substantial proportion of patients with complex procedures: 115 (52.3%) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, 50 (22.7%) patients with multilesion procedures, and 60 (21.5%) bifurcation lesions. After 4‐6 hr observation period, 213 of the 220 patients (96.8%) were cleared for discharge. The remaining seven (3.2%) patients were kept overnight for unstable angina (n = 1), atypical chest discomfort (n = 2), puncture site hematoma (n = 1), or non‐cardiovascular reasons (n = 3). Within 24 hr after discharge, no patients experienced readmission, stent occlusion, recurrent ischemia, or local complications. Furthermore, 99% of patients were satisfied with ambulatory management and 85% reported no anxiety. The average non‐procedural cost was lower for ambulatory PCI than conventional PCI (1,230 ± 98 Euros vs. 2,304 ± 1814 Euros, P < 10−6). Conclusions: Ambulatory PCI in patients with stable coronary artery disease is safe, effective, and well accepted by the patients. It may both significantly reduce costs and optimize hospital resource utilization. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Logistical Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 83%

Ambulatory transradial percutaneous coronary intervention: A safe, effective, and cost‐saving strategy

Corvoisier

Gellen

Lesault

et al. 2012

Cathet Cardio Intervent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, beta-blockers do not exacerbate claudication symptoms 1,2) , and the incidence of ischemic cardiac disease and subsequent cardiovascular events is high in many PAD patients 3,4) . Beta-blockers (BBs) suppress cardiovascular events [5][6][7][8][9] and the potential use of these drugs in patients with PAD is discussed in the Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society consensus (TASC ) guidelines 4) . However, it is unclear whether beta-blockers influence both the vital prognosis and prognosis of the lower lesion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beta-blocker Treatment Does Not Worsen Critical Limb Ischemia in Patients Receiving Endovascular Therapy

Soga

Iida

Takahara

et al. 2015

JAT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: It has been reported that beta-blockers (BB) reduce cardiovascular events in patients with atherosclerotic disease. However, little is known about the efficacy of these drugs in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). We investigated whether beta-blocker therapy affects the clinical outcomes of CLI patients. Methods: Between March 2004 and December 2011, 1,873 consecutive CLI patients who received endovascular therapy (EVT) (394 BB-treated patients and 1,479 non-BB-treated patients) for de novo infrainguinal lesions were identified retrospectively. A propensity score analysis was used for risk adjustment in a multivariable analysis and one-to-one matching (BB: 305, non-BB 305). The primary endpoint was amputation-free survival (AFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival and the rates of limb salvage and freedom from major adverse limb events (MALE; including repeat reintervention, surgical conversion and major amputation). The mean follow-up period was 22 15 months. Results: In the propensity score-matched pair analysis, there were no significant differences in AFS between the patients treated with and without beta-blockers (58.8% vs. 58.5% at three years, logrank p 0.76). There were also no significant differences in the limb salvage rate (88.3% vs. 88.8 at three years, log-rank P 0.41), overall survival (63.0% vs. 62.4% at three years, log-rank P 0.70) and freedom from MALE (43.6% vs. 44.9% at three years, log-rank P 0.58) between the patients treated with and without beta-blockers. Conclusions

show abstract

“…lipid-lowering drugs, ACEIs or ARBs and anti-platelet drugs all improve outcome [6,13]. These treatments significantly reduced mortality and the rate of any death, MI, stroke or HF in adjusted time-dependent analyses that took drug use during follow-up into account.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 1) [14]. In the most recent guidelines for secondary 20 prevention it is recommended to consider the use of ACEIs in all patients and ARBs in patients who are ACEI intolerant [6,13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with nifedipine GITS or placebo in addition to the other medications prescribed as clinically indicated. In this paper we describe the pattern of prescribed medications, as recommended in guidelines for patients with established coronary heart disease and the effects on 15 mortality and major cardiovascular events of these cardiovascular medications and coronary interventions [4][5][6]. We adjusted for prognostic factors and considered both the relationship between outcome and treatment at baseline, and treatment during follow-up.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Long-term impact of secondary preventive treatments in patients with stable angina

Vokó

Brouwer²,

Lubsen³

et al. 2011

Eur J Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Guidelines on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris (Ending)

Cited by 22 publications

References 138 publications

Ambulatory transradial percutaneous coronary intervention: A safe, effective, and cost‐saving strategy

Ambulatory transradial percutaneous coronary intervention: A safe, effective, and cost‐saving strategy

Beta-blocker Treatment Does Not Worsen Critical Limb Ischemia in Patients Receiving Endovascular Therapy

Long-term impact of secondary preventive treatments in patients with stable angina

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About