No abstract

Fundamentos: A determinação precisa do colesterol de lipoproteína de baixa densidade (LDL-C) é importante para se alcançar concentrações de LDL-C recomendadas por diretrizes e para reduzir resultados cardiovasculares adversos em pacientes diabéticos. A equação de Friedewald comumente usada (LDL-Cf) produz resultados imprecisos em pacientes diabéticos devido a dislipidemia diabética associada. Recentemente, duas novas equações -Martin/Hopkins (LDL-CMH) e Sampson (LDL-Cs) -foram desenvolvidas para melhorar a precisão da estimativa de LDL-C, mas os dados são insuficientes para sugerir a superioridade de uma equação sobre a outra. Objetivos: O presente estudo comparou a precisão e a utilidade clínica das novas equações de Martin/Hopkins e Sampson em pacientes diabéticos. Método: Foram incluídos no estudo quatrocentos e dois (402) pacientes com diabetes. O risco cardiovascular dos pacientes e as metas de LDL-C foram calculadas por diretrizes europeias. As concentrações de LDL-Cmh, LDL-Cs, e LDL-Cf calculadas foram comparadas à concentração de LDL-C direto (LDL-Cd) para testar a concordância entre essas equações e LDL-Cd. Um P valor <0,05 foi aceito como estatisticamente significativo. Resultados: A LDL-CMH e a LDL-Cs tiveram concordância melhor com o LDL-Cd em comparação com a LDL-Cf, mas não houve diferenças estatísticas entre as novas equações para concordância com o LDL-Cd (Alfa de Cronbach de 0,955 para ambos, p=1). Da mesma forma, a LDL-CMH e a LDL-Cs tinham um grau semelhante de concordância com o LDL-Cd para determinar se o paciente estava dentro da meta de LDL-C (96,3% para LDL-Cmh e 96,0% para LDL-Cs), que eram ligeiramente melhores que a LDL-Cf (94,6%). Em pacientes com uma concentração de triglicérides >400 mg/dl, a concordância com o LDL-Cd foi ruim, independentemente do método usado. Conclusão: As equações de Martin/Hopkins e Sampson mostram uma precisão similar para o cálculo de concentrações de LDL-C nos pacientes com diabetes, e ambas as equações são ligeiramente melhores que a equação de Friedewald.

No abstract

Snapshot evaluation of acute and chronic heart failure in real-life in Turkey: A follow-up data for mortality Objective: Heart failure (HF) is a progressive clinical syndrome. SELFIE-TR is a registry illustrating the overall HF patient profile of Turkey. Herein, all-cause mortality (ACM) data during follow-up were provided. Methods: This is a prospective outcome analysis of SELFIE-TR. Patients were classified as acute HF (AHF) versus chronic HF (CHF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mid-range ejection fraction, and HF with preserved ejection fraction and were followed up for ACM. Results: There were 1054 patients with a mean age of 63.3±13.3 years and with a median follow-up period of 16 (7-17) months. Survival data within 1 year were available in 1022 patients. Crude ACM was 19.9% for 1 year in the whole group. ACM within 1 year was 13.7% versus 32.6% in patients with CHF and AHF, respectively (p<0.001). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker, beta blocker, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist were present in 70.6%, 88.2%, and 50.7%, respectively. In the whole cohort, survival curves were graded according to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) scores ≤1 versus 2 versus 3 as 28% versus 20.2% versus 12.2%, respectively (p<0.001). Multivariate analysis of the whole cohort yielded age (p=0.009) and AHF (p=0.028) as independent predictors of mortality in 1 year. Conclusion: One-year mortality is high in Turkish patients with HF compared with contemporary cohorts with AHF and CHF. Of note, GDMT score is influential on 1-year mortality being the most striking one on chronic HFrEF. On the other hand, in the whole cohort, age and AHF were the only independent predictors of death in 1 year.

We retrospectively analyzed short- and long-term outcomes of patients who received bailout tirofiban during primary percutaneous intervention (pPCI). A total of 2681patients who underwent pPCI between 2009 and 2014 were analyzed; 1331 (49.6%) out of 2681 patients received bailout tirofiban. Using propensity score matching, 2100 patients (1050 patient received bail-out tirofiban) with similar preprocedural characteristics were identified. Patients who received bailout tirofiban had a significantly higher incidence of acute stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and major cardiac or cerebrovascular events during the in-hospital period. There were numerically fewer deaths in the bailout tirofiban group in the unmatched cohort (1.7% vs 2.5%, P = .118). In the matched cohort, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower (1.1% vs 2.4%, P = .03), and survival at 12 and 60 months were higher (96.9% vs 95.2%, P = .056 for 12 months and 95.1% vs 92.0%, P = .01 for 60 months) in the bailout tirofiban group. After multivariate adjustment, bailout tirofiban was associated with a lower mortality at 12 months (odds ratio [OR]: 0.554, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.349-0.880, P = .012) and 60 months (OR: 0.595, 95% CI, 0.413-0.859, P = .006). In conclusion, bailout tirofiban strategy during pPCI is associated with a lower short- and long-term mortality, although in-hospital complications were more frequent.