American heart journal
-
American heart journal · Mar 2013
Multicenter StudyDetermining the risks of clinically indicated nonthoracic magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 T for patients with pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: rationale and design of the MagnaSafe Registry.
Until recently, the presence of a permanent pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator has been a relative contraindication for the performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A number of small studies have shown that MRI can be performed with minimal risk when patients are properly monitored and device programming is modified appropriately for the procedure. However, the risk of performing MRI for patients with implanted cardiac devices has not been sufficiently evaluated to advocate routine clinical use. The aim of the present protocol is to prospectively determine the rate of adverse clinical events and device parameter changes in patients with implanted non-MRI-conditional cardiac devices undergoing clinically indicated nonthoracic MRI at 1.5 T. ⋯ The results of this registry will provide additional documentation of the risk of MRI and will further validate a clinical protocol for screening and the performance of clinically indicated MRI for patients with implanted cardiac devices.
-
American heart journal · Mar 2013
Comparative StudyCentral versus local adjudication of myocardial infarction in a cardiac biomarker trial.
The impact of regulatory requirements, which require central adjudication for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in cardiac biomarker studies, is unclear. We determined the impact of local (at the site of subject enrollment) versus central adjudication of AMI on final diagnosis. ⋯ Despite an acceptable κ, over a third of patients with a diagnosis of AMI were not assigned that diagnosis by both sets of adjudicators. This supports the importance of 1 standard method for diagnosis of AMI.
-
American heart journal · Mar 2013
Comparative StudyEarly and late outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention by radial or femoral approach in patients presenting in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock.
Although radial approach is increasingly used in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) including in acute myocardial infarction (MI), patients with cardiogenic shock have been excluded from comparisons with femoral approach. The aim of our study was to compare clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary PCI with cardiogenic shock by radial and femoral approach. ⋯ Radial approach was safe and feasible in more than half of the patients with ST-elevation MI and cardiogenic shock treated by primary PCI. After adjustment for baseline and procedural characteristics, radial approach remained associated with better survival. However, prognosis of patients undergoing primary PCI in cardiogenic shock remains poor.