Search

Abstract Background: Gender-related differences have been reported in patients with acute coronary syndrome. The description of this comparative finding in a Brazilian registry has not yet been documented. Objective: To compare male vs. female patients regarding the baseline characteristics, coronary findings, treatment and in-hospital and long-term prognosis. Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter and observational study that included 3,745 patients (2,437 males and 1,308 females) between May 2010 and May 2015. The primary in-hospital outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome consisted of combined events (cardiogenic shock, reinfarction, death, stroke and bleeding). The comparison between groups was performed using the chi-square and the t test, considering p < 0.05 as significant. In the long term, mortality and combined events were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method, with a mean follow-up of 8.79 months. Results: The mean age was 60.3 years for males and 64.6 for females (p < 0.0001). The most prevalent risk factor was systemic arterial hypertension in 72.9% of the women and 67.8% of the men (p = 0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention was carried out in 44.9% of the males and 35.4% of the females (p < 0.0001), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) was performed in 17% of the males and 11.8% of females (p < 0.0001), with a higher prevalence of three-vessel coronary artery disease in males (27.3% vs. 16.2%, p < 0.0001). Approximately 79.9% of the female patients received a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation, while in the male patients, this diagnosis was attained in 71.5% (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were observed between the groups in the short and long term, regarding both mortality and the combined events. Conclusion: Several gender-related differences were observed in patients with acute coronary syndrome regarding the demographic characteristics, coronary artery disease pattern and implemented treatment. However, the prognostic evolution was similar between the groups.

Abstract Background: Recent studies have shown fondaparinux's superiority over enoxaparin in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS), especially in relation to bleeding reduction. The description of this finding in a Brazilian registry has not yet been documented. Objective: To compare fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in in-hospital prognosis of non-ST elevation ACS. Methods: Multicenter retrospective observational study. A total of 2,282 patients were included (335 in the fondaparinux group, and 1,947 in the enoxaparin group) between May 2010 and May 2015. Demographic, medication intake and chosen coronary treatment data were obtained. Primary outcome was mortality from all causes. Secondary outcome was combined events (cardiogenic shock, reinfarction, death, stroke and bleeding). Comparison between the groups were done through Chi-Square test and T test. Multivariate analysis was done through logistic regression, with significance values defined as p < 0.05. Results: With regards to treatment, we observed the performance of a percutaneous coronary intervention in 40.2% in the fondaparinux group, and in 35.1% in the enoxaparin group (p = 0.13). In the multivariate analysis, we observed significant differences between fondaparinux and enoxaparin groups in relation to combined events (13.8% vs. 22%. OR = 2.93, p = 0.007) and bleeding (2.3% vs. 5.2%, OR = 4.55, p = 0.037), respectively. Conclusion: Similarly to recently published data in international literature, fondaparinux proved superior to enoxaparin for the Brazilian population, with significant reduction of combined events and bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: Recent studies have revealed a relationship between beta-blocker use and worse prognosis in acute coronary syndrome, mainly due to a higher incidence of cardiogenic shock. However, the relevance of this relationship in the reperfusion era is unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome that started oral beta-blockers within the first 24 hours of hospital admission (group I) compared to patients who did not use oral beta-blockers in this timeframe (group II). METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective and multicentric study with 2,553 patients (2,212 in group I and 341 in group II). Data regarding demographic characteristics, coronary treatment and medication use in the hospital were obtained. The primary endpoint was in-hospital all-cause mortality. The groups were compared by ANOVA and the chi-square test. Multivariate analysis was conducted by logistic regression and results were considered significant when p