RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Indication of temporary pacemakers in patients during acute myocardial infarction was widely studied in the pre-thrombolytic era without having determined whether the generalization of fibrinolysis might have changed the overall incidence and significance of temporary pacemakers. Our aim was to determine the incidence and the prognostic significance of insertion of temporary pacemakers in patients with acute myocardial infarction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a study involving 1,239 patients consecutively admitted to hospital with acute myocardial infarction we studied clinical characteristics and prognosis depending on temporary pacemaker insertion or not. We performed an univariate analysis on in-hospital mortality and those selected variables were introduced in to a logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A temporary pacemaker was indicated in 55 patients (4.4%), prophylactically in 22% and therapeutically in 78%. Temporary pacemakers were inserted in 55% of the patients with advanced AV block and in the 10% of the patients with bundle-branch block. Pacemaker insertion was associated with higher number of affected leads in the ECG, and higher CK peak, regardless of the association with thrombolysis. The following complications were more often observed in patients with temporary pacemakers: atrial fibrillation, heart failure, right bundle-branch block, advanced atrioventricular block and in-hospital mortality (45.4 vs 10.2%; p < 0.001). Need for a temporary pacemaker was less frequent in patients treated with thrombolytics compared with those not treated (3.0 vs 6.1%; p < 0.02). Pacemaker insertion had an independent value for predicting in-hospital mortality (OR = 5.51; 95% CI, 2.71-11.19). CONCLUSION: The insertion of a temporary pacemaker in acute myocardial infarction is less frequent nowadays than on the pre-thrombolytic era. Pacemaker insertion is associated with higher indices of infarct extension and in-hospital mortality, having independent prognostic value on the in-hospital mortality.
Asunto(s)
Infarto del Miocardio/complicaciones , Marcapaso Artificial/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano , Análisis de Varianza , Fibrilación Atrial/terapia , Bloqueo de Rama/terapia , Femenino , Bloqueo Cardíaco/terapia , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Infarto del Miocardio/mortalidad , Infarto del Miocardio/terapia , Marcapaso Artificial/efectos adversos , Pronóstico , Estudios Prospectivos , Análisis de Regresión , Terapia TrombolíticaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: To identify and to compare the recommendations of the currently existing clinical protocols for arterial hypertension (HT) screening, diagnosis and baseline study in the Murcia Region, Spain, in order to assess their validity and reliability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Structured comparative description of guidelines in Clinical Protocols for HT (n = 40) from all Health Centers in the Region. Comparative description of the Health Centers Clinical Protocols and national and international reference documents regarding HT screening, diagnosis and baseline assessment is performed. RESULTS: Target population for screening ranged from aged > or = 14 years (24 centers) to > 20 (1 center). Screening procedure was not described in 3 centers and screening periodicity varied from 6 months to 5 years, with differences by age and by concurrent risk factors in some protocols. Diagnosis norms differed by age in only 11 protocols; blood pressure (BP) exams for diagnosis varied from 3 to 5 and there were 12 different HT figures for immediate diagnosis and treatment. Baseline study varied greatly; we found a total of 7 recommended items for anamnesis, 11 for physical exam, 19 for blood tests, 4 for urine tests, and 7 for other tests; only the electrocardiogram was common to all protocols. There was also some disagreement in the national and international reference guidelines whose scientific evidence was not always explicitly considered. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide local variation in norms for HT screening, diagnosis, and baseline study. If the Centers follow their own protocols, the same patient may be or may not be diagnosed depending on the Center he visits; additionally, there would be big differences in the process and resources needed for HT control. This variation casts doubt on the protocols validity and reliability at regional level and underscores the need for critically reviewing the validity of existing protocols.