Search

Background: Coronary revascularization in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is challenging. Indications and results of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in SCAD patients are not well established., Aim: To assess indications and results of PCI in SCAD., Methods: The minimum basic data set of the Spanish National Health System (years 2016-2019) was used to identify 804 episodes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and SCAD, with a crude in-hospital mortality rate of 3%. Of these, 368 (46.8%) patients were revascularized with PCI during admission whereas 436 (54.2%) were managed conservatively., Results: Revascularization and in-hospital mortality rates both declined over the study period (p for trend both < 0.05). SCAD patients treated with PCI were older, more frequently male, and had higher frequency of diabetes, ST-segment elevation AMI and cardiogenic shock, compared to patients managed conservatively. The crude in-hospital mortality rate was higher in patients treated with PCI (4.9% vs. 1.4%; p = 0.004). However, after adjusting by propensity score (223 pairs) the in-hospital mortality rate was similar in the two groups (Adj OR: 1.21; 95%CI: 0.30-1.57; p = 0.76). Readmissions at 30-days were higher in patients managed conservatively (7.1 vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001) and this difference was maintained after propensity score adjustment (Adj average treatment effect: 2% vs. 12.2%; OR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.04-0.45; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Revascularization is frequently used in unselected patients with AMI and SCAD but its use is declining. Patients with SCAD treated with PCI have a higher in-hospital mortality but this appears to be explained by their adverse baseline clinical characteristics., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Alfonso, Fernández-Pérez, del Prado, García-Guimaraes, Bernal, Bastante, del Val, García-Márquez and Elola.)

Background: It is not well-understood why symptom severity varies between patients with peanut allergy (PA). Objective: To gain insight into the clinical profile of subjects with mild-to-moderate and severe PA, and investigate individual and collective predictive accuracy of clinical background and IgE to peanut extract and components for PA severity. Methods: Data on demographics, patient history and sensitization at extract and component level of 393 patients with probable PA (symptoms ≤ 2 h + IgE sensitization) from 12 EuroPrevall centers were analyzed. Univariable and penalized multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate risk factors and biomarkers for severity. Results: Female sex, age at onset of PA, symptoms elicited by skin contact with peanut, family atopy, atopic dermatitis, house dust mite and latex allergy were independently associated with severe PA; birch pollen allergy with mild-to-moderate PA. The cross-validated AUC of all clinical background determinants combined (0.74) was significantly larger than the AUC of tests for sensitization to extract (0.63) or peanut components (0.54-0.64). Although larger skin prick test wheal size, and higher IgE to peanut extract, Ara h 1 and Ara h 2/6, were associated with severe PA, and higher IgE to Ara h 8 with mild-to-moderate PA, addition of these measurements of sensitization to the clinical background model did not significantly improve the AUC. Conclusions: Models combining clinical characteristics and IgE sensitization patterns can help establish the risk of severe reactions for peanut allergic patients, but clinical background determinants are most valuable for predicting severity of probable PA in an individual patient., Competing Interests: Outside of submitted work: MF-R reported grants and personal fees from Aimmune Therapeutics and Diater, personal fees from DBV, Allergy Therapeutics, GSK, HAL Allergy, Novartis, ThermoFisher Scientific, and SPRIM. BB-W reported personal fees from ThermoFisher Scientific. FB reported personal fees from Aimmune; grants from Stallergènes Greer, Chiesi, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Regeneron; and board membership for DVB, Stallergènes Greer, Novartis, ALK, Mundipharma, Boehringer, AstraZeneca, Medapharma, and Boston Scientific. JL was an employee of ThermoFisher Scientific. NP reported personal fees from Novartis, Nutricia, HAL Allergy BV, Menarine/Faes Farma, Sanofi, Mylan/Meda, Biomay, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, ASIT Biotech, Boehringer Ingelheim; and grants from Gerolymatos International SA, and Capricare. SV reported personal fees from Ärzteverband Deutscher Allergologen, Swiss Society for Allergy and Immunology, Schattauer Allergologie Handbuch, Elsevier Nahrungsmittelallergien und Intoleranzen, Karger Food Allergy: Molecular Basis and Clinical Practice, and Pharmacon. EM reported grants from Reacta Biotech; and was shareholder of Reacta Biotech Ltd. RR reported personal fees from HAL Allergy BV, Citeq BV, Angany Inc., and ThermoFisher Scientific. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Datema, Lyons, Fernández-Rivas, Ballmer-Weber, Knulst, Asero, Barreales, Belohlavkova, de Blay, Clausen, Dubakiene, Fernández-Perez, Fritsche, Gislason, Hoffmann-Sommergruber, Jedrzejczak-Czechowicz, Jongejan, Kowalski, Kralimarkova, Lidholm, Papadopoulos, Popov, Prado, Purohit, Reig, Seneviratne, Sinaniotis, Vassilopoulou, Versteeg, Vieths, Welsing, Mills, Le, Zwinderman and van Ree.)