METHODS: A single-arm multicenter prospective study was designed aiming to determine the safety and efficacy of ESMT. Patients of functional Canadian Cardiovascular Society class II-IV, despite stable and optimal medical management, with documented myocardial segments with reversible ischemia and/or hibernation on the basis of echocardiography/single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) were enrolled from 2010 to 2012. A total of 111 patients were enrolled, 33 from Indonesia, 21 from Malaysia, and 57 from Philippines. Patients underwent nine cycles of ESMT over 9 weeks. Patients were followed up for 3-6 months after ESMT treatment. During follow-up, patients were subjected to clinical evaluation, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire, assessment of nitrate intake, the 6-min walk test, echocardiography, and SPECT.
RESULTS: The mean age of the population was 62.9±10.9 years. The summed difference score on pharmacologically induced stress SPECT improved from 9.53±17.87 at baseline to 7.77±11.83 at follow-up (P=0.0086). Improvement in the total Seattle Angina Questionnaire score was seen in 83% of patients (P<0.0001). Sublingual nitroglycerin use significantly decreased (1.14±1.01 tablets per week at baseline to 0.52±0.68 tablets per week at follow-up; P=0.0215). There were no changes in left ventricular function on echocardiography (0.33±9.97, P=0.93). The Canadian Cardiovascular Society score improved in 74.1% of patients.
CONCLUSION: This multicenter prospective trial demonstrated that ESMT is both a safe and an efficacious means of managing medically refractory angina.
METHODS: Patients enrolled in the PROGRESS registry were evaluated for use of vasopressor and LDC (equivalent or lesser potency to hydrocortisone 50 mg six-hourly plus 50 microg 9-alpha-fludrocortisone) for treatment of severe sepsis at any time in intensive care units (ICUs). Baseline characteristics and hospital mortality were analyzed, and logistic regression techniques used to develop propensity score and outcome models adjusted for baseline imbalances between groups.
RESULTS: A total of 8,968 patients with severe sepsis and sufficient data for analysis were studied. A total of 79.8% (7,160/8,968) of patients received vasopressors, and 34.0% (3,051/8,968) of patients received LDC. Regional use of LDC was highest in Europe (51.1%) and lowest in Asia (21.6%). Country use was highest in Brazil (62.9%) and lowest in Malaysia (9.0%). A total of 14.2% of patients on LDC were not receiving any vasopressor therapy. LDC patients were older, had more co-morbidities and higher disease severity scores. Patients receiving LDC spent longer in ICU than patients who did not (median of 12 versus 8 days; P <0.001). Overall hospital mortality rates were greater in the LDC than in the non-LDC group (58.0% versus 43.0%; P <0.001). After adjusting for baseline imbalances, in all mortality models (with vasopressor use), a consistent association remained between LDC and hospital mortality (odds ratios varying from 1.30 to 1.47).
CONCLUSIONS: Widespread use of LDC for the treatment of severe sepsis with significant regional and country variation exists. In this study, 14.2% of patients received LDC despite the absence of evidence of shock. Hospital mortality was higher in the LDC group and remained higher after adjustment for key determinates of mortality.