Time filter

Source Type

Don C.W.,University of Washington | House J.,Saint Lukes Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute | White C.,Ochsner Heart and Vascular Clinic | Kiernan T.,University College Cork | And 4 more authors.
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions | Year: 2011

Objectives: We describe characteristics associated with use of endarterectomy (CEA) versus stenting (CAS) in patients before urgent cardiac surgery. Background: The optimal modality of carotid revascularization preceding cardiac surgery is unknown. Methods: Retrospective evaluation of the CARE (Carotid Artery Revascularization and Endarterectomy) registry from January 2005 to April 2010 was performed on patients undergoing CEA or CAS preceding urgent cardiac surgery within 30 days. Baseline characteristics were compared, and multivariate adjustment was performed. Results: Of 451 patients who met study criteria, 255 underwent CAS and 196 underwent CEA. Both procedures increased over time to a similar degree (p = 0.18). Patients undergoing CAS had more frequent history of peripheral artery disease (38.2% vs. 26.5%, p < 0.01), neck surgery (5.5% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.01), neck radiation (4.3% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.04), left-main coronary disease (34.8% vs. 23.5%, p < 0.01), neurological events (45.8% vs. 31.3%, p < 0.01), carotid intervention (20.8% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.01), and higher baseline creatinine (1.3 vs. 1.1 mg/dl, p = 0.02). The target carotid arteries of CAS patients were more likely to be symptomatic in the 6 months before revascularization and have restenosis from prior CEA. Patients undergoing CAS had a lower American Society of Anesthesiology grade. Midwest hospitals were less likely to perform CAS than CEA, whereas in the other regions CAS was more common (p < 0.01). Non-Caucasian race, a history of heart failure, previous carotid procedures, prior stroke, left main coronary artery stenosis, lower American Society of Anesthesiology grade, and teaching hospital were independent predictors of patients who would receive CAS. Conclusions: Carotid artery stenting and CEA have increased among patients undergoing urgent cardiac surgery. Patients who underwent CAS had more vascular disease but lower acute pre-surgical risk. Significant regional variation in procedure selection exists. © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Elderon L.,University of California at San Francisco | Smolderen K.G.,Saint Lukes Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute | Smolderen K.G.,University of Tilburg | Na B.,San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center | And 2 more authors.
Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes | Year: 2011

We administered the 2-step AHA-recommended screening algorithm to 1024 patients with stable coronary heart disease and calculated sensitivity and specificity against a gold standard interview for major depressive disorder. Subsequent cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, heart failure, or death) were determined during a mean of 6.27±2.11 years of follow-up. The AHA-recommended screening method had high specificity (0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.93) but low sensitivity (0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.59) for a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Participants who screened positive on the AHA depression protocol had a 55% greater risk of events than those who screened negative (age-adjusted hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 1.97; P=0.0005). After adjustment for age, sex, body mass index, history of myocardial infarction, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and high-density lipoprotein levels, screening positive remained associated with a 41% greater rate of cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.81; P=0.008). © 2011 American Heart Association, Inc.

Fanari Z.,Christiana Care Health System | Kennedy K.K.,Saint Lukes Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute | Lim M.J.,Saint Louis University | Laddu A.A.,Saint Louis University | Stolker J.M.,Saint Louis University
American Journal of Cardiology | Year: 2014

Beta blockers are indicated for management of acute coronary syndromes, but they generally are withheld in patients with cocaine-associated chest pain because of concerns for adverse outcomes related to the unique physiological effects of cocaine. Because few clinical studies have evaluated this interaction, we identified patients with toxicology screen results positive for cocaine treated for chest pain at 2 academic hospitals. Clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were compared between patients with and without β-blocker therapy. We then constructed propensity scores to evaluate the independent relation between β-blocker use and the composite primary end point of myocardial infarction, stroke, ventricular arrhythmia, or all-cause mortality after adjusting for clinical characteristics. Of 376 consecutive patients with cocaine-related chest pain, β blockers were used in 164 (44%). Compared with no β blockers, patients treated with β blockers were more likely to describe anginal chest pain, to have known cardiovascular risk factors, and to receive other antiatherosclerotic therapies. Despite these higher risk clinical characteristics, patients treated with β blockers experienced similar peak troponin levels, individual adverse events, and rates of the composite primary end point (15.9% vs 12.3%, p = 0.32). The primary end point also was similar after propensity score analysis (odds ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 2.93, p = 0.42), including specific comparisons of beta-1 selective (odds ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 4.24) and nonselective (odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 2.42) β blockers, when compared with patients not receiving β blockers. In conclusion, no differences in outcomes were observed between patients treated versus not treated with β-blocker therapy in the setting of cocaine-related chest pain. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Voeks J.H.,University of Alabama at Birmingham | Howard G.,University of Alabama at Birmingham | Roubin G.S.,New Hill | Malas M.B.,Johns Hopkins Hospital | And 8 more authors.
Stroke | Year: 2011

Background and Purpose: High stroke event rates among carotid artery stenting (CAS)-treated patients in the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial (CREST) lead-in registry generated an a priori hypothesis that age may modify the relative efficacy of CAS versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA). In the primary CREST report, we previously noted significant effect modification by age. Here we extend this investigation by examining the relative efficacy of the components of the primary end point, the treatment-specific impact of age, and contributors to the increasing risk in CAS-treated patients at older ages. Methods: Among 2502 CREST patients with high-grade carotid stenosis, proportional hazards models were used to examine the impact of age on the CAS-to-CEA relative efficacy, and the impact of age on risk within CAS-treated and CEA-treated patients. Results: Age acted as a treatment effect modifier for the primary end point (P interaction=0.02), with the efficacy of CAS and CEA approximately equal at age 70 years. For CAS, risk for the primary end point increased with age (P<0.0001) by 1.77-times (95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.28) per 10-year increment; however, there was no evidence of increased risk for CEA-treated patients (P=0.27). Stroke events were the primary contributor to the overall effect modification (P interaction=0.033), with equal risk at ≈64 years. The treatment-by-age interaction for CAS and CEA was not altered by symptomatic status (P=0.96) or by sex (P=0.45). Conclusions:Outcomes after CAS versus CEA were related to patient age, attributable to increasing risk for stroke after CAS at older ages. Patient age should be an important consideration when choosing between the 2 procedures for treating carotid stenosis. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00004732. © 2011 American Heart Association, Inc.

Marso S.P.,Saint Lukes Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute | Lindsey J.B.,Saint Lukes Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute | Stolker J.M.,Saint Louis University | House J.A.,Saint Lukes Mid America Heart and Vascular Institute | And 4 more authors.
Diabetes and Vascular Disease Research | Year: 2011

We assessed the cardiovascular safety of liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, using existing clinical data. Patient-level results from all completed phase 2 and 3 studies from the liraglutide clinical development programme were pooled to determine rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke. MACE were identified by querying the study database using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms combined with serious adverse events recorded by study investigators. Broad, narrow, and custom groups of MedDRA queries were used. Candidate events from each query were independently adjudicated post hoc. In 15 studies (6638 patients; 4257 liraglutide treated), there were 114 patients with MACE identified using the broad MedDRA query. Of these, 44 were classified as serious adverse events and 39 were adjudicated as MACE. The incidence ratio for adjudicated broad/serious MACE associated with liraglutide was 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.41) versus all comparator drugs (metformin, glimepiride, rosiglitazone, insulin glargine, placebo), within cardiovascular safety limits defined by the United States Food & Drug Administration for diabetes therapies under current investigation. © The Author(s) 2011.

Discover hidden collaborations