No abstract

Deferral of PCI of a functionally non-significant stenosis is associated with a favourable very long-term follow-up without signs of late 'catch-up' phenomenon.

In MI patients, use of an interactive patient support tool improved patient self-reported drug adherence and may be associated with a trend toward improved cardiovascular lifestyle changes and quality of life. Use of a disease-specific interactive patient support tool may be an appreciated, simple, and promising complement to standard secondary prevention.

In this large and unselected group of patients with ACSs, the relation between BMI and mortality was U-shaped, with the nadir among overweight or obese patients and underweight and normal-weight patients having the highest risk. These data strengthen the concept of the obesity paradox substantially.

Stent implantation improved long-term angiographic and clinical results after PTCA of chronic coronary occlusions and is thus recommended regardless of the primary PTCA result.

No abstract

This article presents a general discussion on what has been achieved so far and on the possible future developments of targeted alpha (α)-particle therapy (TAT). Clinical applications and potential benefits of TAT are addressed as well as the drawbacks, such as the limited availability of relevant radionuclides. Alpha-particles have a particular advantage in targeted therapy because of their high potency and specificity. These features are due to their densely ionizing track structure and short path length. The most important consequence, and the major difference compared with the more widely used β−-particle emitters, is that single targeted cancer cells can be killed by self-irradiation with α-particles. Several clinical trials on TAT have been reported, completed, or are on-going: four using 213Bi, two with 211At, two with 225Ac, and one with 212Pb/212Bi. Important and conceptual proof-of-principle of the therapeutic advantages of α-particle therapy has come from clinical studies with 223Ra-dichloride therapy, showing clear benefits in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is reco...