This study demonstrates that a significant improvement in endothelial function may be obtained after six months of antihypertensive therapy and clearly identifies patients who possibly have a more favorable prognosis.

Background Few reports described outcomes of complete compared with infarct-related artery (IRA)-only revascularisation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Moreover, no studies have compared the simultaneous treatment of non-IRA with the IRA treatment followed by an elective procedure for the other lesions (staged revascularisation). Methods The outcomes of 214 consecutive patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD undergoing primary angioplasty were studied. Before the first angioplasty patients were randomly assigned to three different strategies: culprit vessel angioplasty-only (COR group); staged revascularisation (SR group) and simultaneous treatment of non-IRA (CR group). Results During a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, 42 (50.0%) patients in the COR group experienced at least one major adverse cardiac event (MACE), 13 (20.0%) in the SR group and 15 (23.1%) in the CR group, p<0.001. Inhospital death, repeat revascularisation and rehospitalisation occurred more frequently in the COR group (all p<0.05), whereas there was no significant difference in re-infarction among the three groups. Survival free of MACE was significantly reduced in the COR group but was similar in the CR and SR groups. Conclusions Culprit vessel-only angioplasty was associated with the highest rate of long-term MACE compared with multivessel treatment. Patients scheduled for staged revascularisation experienced a similar rate of MACE to patients undergoing complete simultaneous treatment of non-IRA.Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is currently the treatment of choice in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a diffuse process and patients presenting with a coronary syndrome in 20e40% of cases have multiple significant coronary lesions, which confer a substantially increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Contemporary guidelines recommend dilating only the infarct-related artery (IRA) during the urgent procedure, leaving the other stenosed vessels untreated (culprit-only revascularisation) or to dilate during a second elective procedure (staged revascularisation). Simultaneous treatment of IRA and non-IRA is recommended only in patients with cardiogenic shock.4 5 However, these guidelines are based on the results of earlier studies. With advancing technology and newer antiplatelet drugs, outcomes have improved even in patients undergoing multivessel and higher-risk elective procedures. 6 Yet, few reports have described outcomes of multivessel compared with IRA-only revascularisation in patients undergoing urgent mechanical reperfusion for STEMI, 7 8 and none have distinguished simultaneous treatment of non-IRA from the staged approach. Therefore, the optimal management of patients with multivessel disease in this setting remains still unclear.The aim of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of three different strategies during primary PCI in patients with STEMI ...

In post-menopausal women, the knowledge of FMD provided incremental prognostic information regarding the risk of developing cardiovascular events.

TIMI and GRACE are the risk scores that up until now have been most extensively investigated, with GRACE performing better. There are other potentially useful ACS risk scores available however these have not undergone rigorous validation. This study suggests that these other scores may be potentially useful and should be further researched.

CorrespondenceWe appreciate the comments by Dr Maini regarding our recent article on outcome of percutaneous left-ventricular support with the Impella-2.5 assist device in acute cardiogenic shock.1 In this article, we summarize the results of real-world Impella-2.5 use in Europe outside of randomized trials, where the device is frequently used as last resort option in patients unresponsive to vasopressors, revascularization, and intra-aortic balloon pump support.We agree with Dr Maini in emphasizing the fact that the disappointing data of the EUROSHOCK Registry likely reflects the selection of the most severely ill patients who have failed first-line treatment of cardiogenic shock. The lack of a control group in this registry hampers definite conclusions on efficacy of Impella-2.5 support at this point. However, decrease in plasma lactate after the beginning of Impella support suggests at least partial reversal of hypoperfusion and supports the hemodynamic efficacy of the device. As suggested in the article, earlier institution of support and rapid escalation to more powerful assist devices could be a recommended strategy in patients failing to improve, which, however, is currently rather based on experience than actual data. 1,2 DisclosuresDr Henriques has received an unrestricted research grant from Abiomed Europe GmbH, Aachen, Germany. The other authors report no conflict. Alexander Lauten, MD

Coronary atherosclerosis is more severe in patients with vascular ED; ED predicts the presence and extent of subclinical atherosclerosis independent of traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Thus, ED may be considered an additional, early warning sign of coronary atherosclerosis.

No abstract

Clinicians often face difficult decisions despite the lack of evidence from randomized trials. Thus, clinical evidence is often shaped by non-randomized studies exploiting multivariable approaches to limit the extent of confounding. Since their introduction, propensity scores have been used more and more frequently to estimate relevant clinical effects adjusting for established confounders, especially in small datasets. However, debate persists on their real usefulness in comparison to standard multivariable approaches such as logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard analysis. This holds even truer in light of key quantitative developments such as bootstrap and Bayesian methods. This qualitative review aims to provide a concise and practical guide to choose between propensity scores and standard multivariable analysis, emphasizing strengths and weaknesses of both approaches.