RESUMEN

Background: Several conflicting reviews have concluded that the use of loop diuretics is associated with poorer clinical and safety outcomes. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of tolvaptan as an adjunct to conventional diuretic therapy in patients with acute heart failure (AHF). Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library until 24 May 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of tolvaptan with conventional therapy and placebo in patients with AHF. The quality assessment of the included trials was conducted using the Cochrane risk of bias. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to examine the dosage effect of tolvaptan. Result: A total of 17 studies with 18 reports, involving 10,039 patients, were selected. The tolvaptan add-on therapy significantly alleviated dyspnea [24 h: RR 1.16 (1.04, 1.29), 48 h: RR 1.18 (1.04, 1.33)], reduced body weight within 48 h [Asian group, MD -0.93 (-1.48, -0.38); non-Asian group, MD -2.76 (-2.88, -2.65)], reduced edema [RR 1.08 (1.02, 1.15)], increased serum sodium [non-Asian group, MD 3.40 (3.02, 3.78)], and resulted in a change in serum creatinine [MD -0.10 (-0.18, -0.01)]. No significant differences were observed in mortality and rehospitalization. The NMA suggested that an intermediate dosage (15 mg/day) might offer the best efficacy in reducing dyspnea within 24 h, reducing edema, increasing serum sodium, and lowering the incidence of worsening renal function (WRF). Conclusion: In conclusion, the meta-analysis showed that tolvaptan contributed to the short-term alleviation of congestive symptoms, elevated sodium levels, and a lower incidence of WRF. However, no significant benefits were observed in long-term symptoms, rehospitalization rates, and mortality. An intermediate dosage of tolvaptan might be considered the optimal choice for various clinical outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42023420288).

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in Indonesia and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a routinely performed procedure. The aim of this study is to provide real-world insight on the demographics of coronary artery disease and comparison between radial compared to femoral PCI in Indonesia, which performed radial access whenever possible. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study involving 5420 patients with coronary artery disease who underwent PCI at 9 participating centers in the period of January 2017-December 2018. RESULTS: Radial access rate was performed in 4038 (74.5%) patients. Patients receiving femoral access has a higher rate of comorbidities and complex lesions compared to radial access. The incidence of in-hospital mortality, cardiogenic shock, major arrhythmia, and tamponade were higher in femoral group. The incidence of in-hospital mortality was 114 (2.1%). New-onset angina (OR 3.412), chronic renal failure (OR 3.47), RBBB (OR 4.26), LBBB (OR 6.26), left main stenosis PCI (OR 3.58), cardiogenic shock (OR 4.9), and arrhythmia (OR 15.59) were found to be independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. Radial access did not independently affect in-hospital mortality. In propensity-matched cohort, radial access was not associated with lower in-hospital mortality in both bivariable and multivariable model. However, radial access was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in STEMI subgroup (OR 0.31). CONCLUSION: Higher rate of adverse events was noted on the femoral access group. However, it might stem from the fact that patients with more comorbidities and complex lesions are more likely to be assigned to femoral access-group. Neither radial or femoral access is superior in terms of in-hospital mortality upon propensity-score matching/multivariable analysis.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We studied the characteristics of patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) after expansion of a STEMI registry as part of the STEMI network programme in a metropolitan city and the surrounding area covering ∼26 million inhabitants. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Emergency department of 56 health centres. PARTICIPANTS: 3015 patients with acute coronary syndrome, of which 1024 patients had STEMI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Characteristics of reperfusion therapy. RESULTS: The majority of patients with STEMI (81%; N=826) were admitted to six academic percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centres. PCI centres received patients predominantly (56%; N=514) from a transfer process. The proportion of patients receiving acute reperfusion therapy was higher than non-reperfused patients (54% vs 46%, p<0.001), and primary PCI was the most common method of reperfusion (86%). The mean door-to-device (DTD) time was 102±68 min. In-hospital mortality of non-reperfused patients was higher than patients receiving primary PCI or fibrinolytic therapy (9.1% vs 3.2% vs 3.8%, p<0.001). Compared with non-academic PCI centres, patients with STEMI admitted to academic PCI centres who underwent primary PCI had shorter mean DTD time (96±44 min vs 140±151 min, p<0.001), higher use of manual thrombectomy (60.2% vs13.8%, p<0.001) and drug-eluting stent implantation (87% vs 69%, p=0.001), but had similar use of radial approach and intra-aortic balloon pump (55.7% vs 67.2%, and 2.2% vs 3.4%, respectively). In patients transferred for primary PCI, TIMI risk score ≥4 on presentation was associated with a prolonged door-in to door-out (DI-DO) time (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.95, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In the expanded JAC registry, a higher proportion of patients with STEMI received reperfusion therapy, but 46% still did not. In developing countries, focusing the prehospital care in the network should be a major focus of care to improve the DI-DO time along with improvement of DTD time at PCI centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319473.

Asunto(s)

Síndrome Coronario Agudo/complicaciones , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/estadística & datos numéricos , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/mortalidad , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/terapia , Anciano , Países en Desarrollo , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Femenino , Humanos , Indonesia/epidemiología , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis Multivariante , Reperfusión Miocárdica , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Sistema de Registros , Estudios Retrospectivos , Terapia Trombolítica/métodos , Factores de Tiempo

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Routine evaluation of performance measures for the system of care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is needed to improve the STEMI network. We sought to evaluate the current status of reperfusion therapy for STEMI in the capital city of a developing country where a STEMI network was introduced in 2010. METHODS: Data were obtained from a local registry. A total of 28 812 patients admitted to the emergency department of a national cardiovascular hospital in three different periods (2007, 2010 and 2013) were retrospectively analysed; there were 2703 patients with STEMI. RESULTS: In 2013 compared with 2007, there was a major increase in the number of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) (35% vs 24%, p<0.001), and the proportion of non-reperfused patients fell (62.8% vs 67.7%, p<0.001). An improvement in the overall STEMI mortality rate was also observed (7.5% vs 11.7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a regional system of care for STEMI may improve utilisation of primary PCI. Future organisation of reperfusion therapy in a developing country such as Indonesia strongly calls for a strategy that focuses on prehospital care to minimise delay from the first medical contact to reperfusion therapy, and this may reduce the proportion of non-reperfused patients. These strategies are in concordance with guideline recommendations and may reduce or eliminate gaps in healthcare in developing countries, particularly the underutilisation of evidence-based therapies for patients with STEMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 02319473, Clinicaltrials.gov.