Search

Challenges remain for clinicians over balancing the efficacy of active antithrombotic therapy and simultaneous bleeding reduction in patients. The clinical data of 347 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were retrospectively analyzed. On the basis of the given tirofiban, the patients were assigned into three different dose groups: high dose group (group H), medium dose group (group M), and low dose group (group L). The tirofiban efficacy was evaluated in terms of major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) parameters and lab endpoints, including platelet count and function. The tirofiban safety was assessed by the occurrence of bleeding events. The patients were followed up for 1 month after the PCI. No significant difference in MACE events was evident among these groups (p > 0.05). Groups H and M reported an obvious reduction in platelet count (p < 0.05 for both) and an increased platelet inhibition rate (p < 0.05 for both). Group H showed a higher rate of total bleeding events than the other groups (Group H vs. Group M: 34.4% vs. 16.5%; Group H vs. Group L: 34.4% vs. 10.3%; p < 0.05 for both). A proper administration of a low dose of tirofiban may be a superior alternative in treating ACS patients, which can produce a similar favorable clinical outcome and a decrease in bleeding complication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transfemoral device occlusion and minimally invasive surgical repair are performed for doubly committed subarterial ventricular septal defect (dcVSD) to reduce the invasiveness of the conventional surgical repair through a median sternotomy. However, few studies have compared them in terms of effectiveness and cost. Inpatients with isolated dcVSD who had undergone transfemoral device occlusion or minimally invasive surgical repair from January 2011 to June 2014 were reviewed for a comparative investigation between the two procedures. Procedure success was achieved in 36 transfemoral (75 %) and in 36 surgical (100 %) procedures ( p = 0.001). Transfemoral patients were older, with a VSD size similar to that of surgical patients (14.5 ± 11.7 vs 4.4 ± 2.9 years, p < 0.001; 4.5 ± 1.5 vs 4.4 ± 1.3 mm, p = 0.577, respectively). No significant difference was observed in complication rates between the two treatment groups ( p = 1). No large residual shunt was observed. Small residual shunt was noted in two transfemoral patients and four surgical patients ( p = 0.674). All these small residual shunts closed spontaneously during follow-up. The surgical repair costs 26 % less than the device occlusion (Yuan 22063.2 ± 343.9 vs Yuan 29970.1 ± 1335.2, p < 0.001), where most of the cost was attributed to the occluder in the amount of Yuan 19,500. Compared with device occlusion, minimally invasive surgical repair can provide superior efficacy and comparable complication rates. In addition, it is 26 % cheaper than device occlusion. In low-income countries where healthcare resources are limited, medical resources must be judiciously allocated to the treatment that allows for effective treatment of the largest number of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Current hypertension guidelines recommend single-pill combinations because they not only improve convenience and compliance to therapy and thus blood pressure (BP) control, but also reduce health-care costs. This study compared the efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination with nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) in Chinese patients with hypertension who were inadequately controlled with monotherapy. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study, 564 patients with hypertension not adequately controlled by prior monotherapy were randomized to receive valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg or nifedipine GITS 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks. Results: In the intention-to-treat analysis ( n = 540), valsartan/amlodipine ( n = 272) showed a least-square mean reduction of −16.6 versus −10.8 mmHg by nifedipine GITS ( n = 268; mean between-treatment difference: −5.8 mmHg; P < 0.0001) from baseline to week 12. The corresponding results for mean sitting diastolic BP were −8.6 and −4.6 mmHg, respectively (difference: −4.0 mmHg; P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients achieving the BP target (<140/90 or <130/80 mmHg in the absence or presence of diabetes mellitus, respectively) was significantly higher with valsartan/amlodipine (79.0%) versus nifedipine GITS (57.4%; P < 0.0001). The overall incidence rate of adverse events was lower with valsartan/amlodipine (19.2%) than with nifedipine GITS (29.4%; P = 0.004). Conclusion: The valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg single-pill combination is well tolerated and more effective than nifedipine GITS 30 mg for BP control in Chinese patients with hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]