Search

Today there is solid evidence that high-risk patients with acute myocardial infarction without ST-elevation should undergo routine invasive treatment, preferably with a very short delay. Evidence suggests that acute coronary occlusions are present in many of these patients. Nevertheless, so far no studies have been powered to evaluate the impact of primary percutaneous coronary intervention on outcome in this patient population. With the advanced, prehospital, diagnostic possibilities available today it would be possible to investigate this issue further.

Noninvasive evaluation of the coronary arteries by multi-detector row computed tomography is a promising new alternative to conventional invasive coronary angiography. This article describes the technical background, methods, limitations and clinical applications and reviews current literature that compares the diagnostic accuracy of multi-detector row computed tomography with that of coronary angiography.

Introduction: Several studies, including the DANAMI-2 trial, have shown that primary percutanous intervention (PCI) results in better survival, fewer reinfarctions and fewer cerebrovascular incidents than thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to follow the implementation of primary PCI as a routine treatment for patients with STEMI and to compare the results with those of DANAMI-2., Materials and Methods: We performed a prospective analysis of 212 patients admitted to our department from 1 April 2002 to 31 December 2002 with STEMI. Acute coronary angiography and, if indicated, primary PCI were performed., Results: At 30 days, the mortality rate was 6.6%, the reinfarction rate 1.4% and the rate of disabling stroke 1.4%. Combined endpoints were present in 8% of the patients. The results are in agreement with those from the DANAMI-2 trial., Discussion: Primary PCI can be performed in daily clinical practice in accordance with the DANAMI-2 protocol. The results are in agreement with data from newly published meta-analyses.

Introduction: Despite the lack of scientific evidence, surgical caps and masks are worn routinely by many physicians and nurses in the catheterisation laboratories to avoid local and generalised infections. When we changed our practice, we performed a randomised study to assure the quality of our routine., Material and Methods: All patients undergoing left- or right-sided cardiac catheterisation were randomly allocated to our five laboratories. About two months after the procedure, the patients were sent a questionnaire concerning signs and symptoms of possible inflammation or infection after the procedure., Results: Of 1,034 patients, 855 (82.7%) responded to the questionnaire. Although 25 patients in the caps and mask group vs 19 patients in the other group (6.1% vs 4.3%, ns) had complaints from the procedural access site in the groin, none of these could be ascribed to definite infection., Discussion: The use of caps and masks during percutaneous cardiac catheterisation procedures is based on the concept that the infection rate of patients is reduced. The size of the catheter used, procedure time, and the use of caps and masks by both the surgeon and the assisting staff are discussed., Conclusion: The routine use of caps and masks does not seem to have that much beneficial impact on the occurrence of procedure-related inflammations or infections in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory.