RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite advances in haemophilia care, inhibitor development remains a significant complication. Although viable treatment options exist, there is some divergence of opinion in the appropriate standard approach to care and goals of treatment. The aim of this study was to assess consensus on United Kingdom (UK) standard of care for child and adult haemophilia patients with inhibitors. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted using a two-round online survey. A haemophilia expert steering committee and published literature informed the Round 1 questionnaire. Invited participants included haematologists, haemophilia nurses and physiotherapists who had treated at least one haemophilia patient with inhibitors in the past 5 years. Consensus for 6-point Likert scale questions was pre-defined as ⩾70% participants selecting 1-2 (disagreement) or 5-6 (agreement). RESULTS: In all, 46.7% and 35.9% questions achieved consensus in Rounds 1 (n = 41) and 2 (n = 34), respectively. Consensus was reached on the importance of improving quality of life (QoL) and reaching clinical goals such as bleed prevention, eradication of inhibitors and pain management. There was agreement on criteria constituting adequate/inadequate responses to immune tolerance induction (ITI) and the appropriate factor VIII dose to address suboptimal ITI response. Opinions varied on treatment aims for adults and children/adolescents, when to offer prophylaxis with bypassing agents and expectations of prophylaxis. Consensus was also lacking on appropriate treatment for mild/moderate patients with inhibitors. CONCLUSION: UK healthcare professionals appear to be aligned on the clinical goals and role of ITI when managing haemophilia patients with inhibitors, although novel treatment developments may require reassessment of these goals. Lack of consensus on prophylaxis with bypassing agents and management of mild/moderate cases identifies a need for further research to establish more comprehensive, evidence-based treatment guidance, particularly for those patients who are unable/prefer not to receive non-factor therapies.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To investigate rates of and reasons for second and subsequent stent procedures in an unselected, "real-world" population. BACKGROUND: Repeat stenting is the primary difference reported in clinical trials of alternative revascularization strategies. The incidence, indication, and outcome for repeat stenting in contemporary practice outside the more selective populations of trials and registries has not been described. METHOD: All patients undergoing a first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure with stenting from January 2001 to August 2009 (10,509) from a large UK tertiary referral and district general hospital were identified. Mortality and the incidence, timing, and indication for repeat revascularization in this population were investigated from patient records. RESULTS: Of 10,509 patients undergoing a first PCI and stent implant 23.5% underwent repeat angiography of which 11.2% required repeat PCI and 2% coronary artery bypass grafting (median follow-up of 3.8 years). A total of 1.3% went on to a third PCI. The commonest indication for repeat stenting was disease progression remote from the original stent (46%) and planned staged PCI (23%); 21% had a stent-related indication. Functional assessment before repeat stenting was used in one-third of stable patients. Mortality was 2.5% per annum. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary practice, patients undergoing a first stenting procedure have a low subsequent mortality, and the substantial majority (86.4%) requires no further revascularization over a median 3.8 year follow-up. For those who do require repeat stenting, this is most commonly at a site remote from the first stent.