Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Embolic versus non- embolic acute coronary syndrome. Prognosis differences

View through CrossRef
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Coronary embolism (CE) is a rare cause of acute coronary syndrome with current evidence from small case series. In our previous work (n=36), atrial fibrillation was the main risk factor and STEMI the most frequent presentation. Objetives In this analysis we compare severity characteristics, management and in-hospital prognosis between an embolic cohort versus a non-embolic one among patients with left anterior descending artery as culprit vessel. Methods Observational, retrospective descriptive study of patients admitted in our unit from July 2011 to march 2021 for ACS. The diagnosis of CE was established according to the National Cerebral Cardiovascular Center Criteria. Data were obtained from the ARIAM Andalucia Registry. Results 646 Patients were analysed (19 embolic vs 627 non-embolic). There were no differences in ejection fraction (EF) (43±9% vs 44±10%, p>0.05) or Killip-Kimbal (KK) stage at admission moment (stage I more frequent in both groups) or use of inotropes or vasoactive drugs. Embolic cohort had more in-hospital complications: worse KK stage (p=0.001; KKII 23.5% vs 15.3%; KKIII 23.5% vs 5.9%), more thrombocytopenia (5.3% vs 0.8%, p=0.046) and higher hsTnT levels (p=0.000). There was more use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation in embolic group (21.1% vs 4.9%, p=0.002). Without differences in incidence of cardiac arrest, mechanical complications, bradycardia, hemorrhage or in-hospital dead. Conservative management was more frequent in the embolic group. Percutaneous coronary intervention was the most frequent strategy in both cohorts (14.3% vs 3%; 85.6% vs 92.3%; p<0.05). At discharge, there were not significant differences in antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy. Conclusions In our series the embolic group had worse KK stage and more need of non-invasive mechanical ventilation. They had no significant differences in EF, other mayor complications nor in-hospital mortality.
Title: Embolic versus non- embolic acute coronary syndrome. Prognosis differences
Description:
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None.
Introduction Coronary embolism (CE) is a rare cause of acute coronary syndrome with current evidence from small case series.
In our previous work (n=36), atrial fibrillation was the main risk factor and STEMI the most frequent presentation.
Objetives In this analysis we compare severity characteristics, management and in-hospital prognosis between an embolic cohort versus a non-embolic one among patients with left anterior descending artery as culprit vessel.
Methods Observational, retrospective descriptive study of patients admitted in our unit from July 2011 to march 2021 for ACS.
The diagnosis of CE was established according to the National Cerebral Cardiovascular Center Criteria.
Data were obtained from the ARIAM Andalucia Registry.
Results 646 Patients were analysed (19 embolic vs 627 non-embolic).
There were no differences in ejection fraction (EF) (43±9% vs 44±10%, p>0.
05) or Killip-Kimbal (KK) stage at admission moment (stage I more frequent in both groups) or use of inotropes or vasoactive drugs.
Embolic cohort had more in-hospital complications: worse KK stage (p=0.
001; KKII 23.
5% vs 15.
3%; KKIII 23.
5% vs 5.
9%), more thrombocytopenia (5.
3% vs 0.
8%, p=0.
046) and higher hsTnT levels (p=0.
000).
There was more use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation in embolic group (21.
1% vs 4.
9%, p=0.
002).
Without differences in incidence of cardiac arrest, mechanical complications, bradycardia, hemorrhage or in-hospital dead.
Conservative management was more frequent in the embolic group.
Percutaneous coronary intervention was the most frequent strategy in both cohorts (14.
3% vs 3%; 85.
6% vs 92.
3%; p<0.
05).
At discharge, there were not significant differences in antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy.
Conclusions In our series the embolic group had worse KK stage and more need of non-invasive mechanical ventilation.
They had no significant differences in EF, other mayor complications nor in-hospital mortality.

Related Results

Early Onset of Coronary Subclavian Steal Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review
Early Onset of Coronary Subclavian Steal Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review
Abstract Introduction Coronary subclavian steal syndrome (CSSS) is a rare phenomenon that often goes undiagnosed and causes severe complications, including death. This report prese...
Magnetic resonance measurement of coronary blood flow
Magnetic resonance measurement of coronary blood flow
Magnetic resonance (MR) flow measurement in the coronary artery can be achieved with either a breath‐hold acquisition or a respiration‐triggered acquisition. MR measurements of car...
Coronary risk factors in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients in Yemen
Coronary risk factors in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients in Yemen
Background: A comparative retrospective study has made to compare the distribution of risk factors and complications in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients and other cardiac pa...
Ritelatur Review: Prosedur Pemeriksaan Coronary Angiogrhpy (Cag) Pada Kasus Acute Trasmular Myocardial Infraction
Ritelatur Review: Prosedur Pemeriksaan Coronary Angiogrhpy (Cag) Pada Kasus Acute Trasmular Myocardial Infraction
Literature review: coronary angiography examination procedure in cases of acute trasmular myocardial infarction. Background: Acute transmural myocardial infarction (ATMI) is a crit...
Cardiac myxoma embolic events: characterization and predictors
Cardiac myxoma embolic events: characterization and predictors
Abstract Introduction Myxomas are the most common heart tumors. Although, myxomas are often diagnosed incidentally in asymptomat...

Back to Top