English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Szummer and colleagues raise an important question: Should we manage patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with an early invasive strategy?1 It makes good sense to do this. We know that patients with renal dysfunction are at high risk,2 and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines both recommend an early invasive strategy for patients with unstable angina/NSTEMI who are high risk.3,4 Neither guideline, however, specifically notes that renal dysfunction should be a specific indication for an invasive strategy.Article see p 851 The investigators analyzed 23262 consecutive NSTEMI patients who had been included in a nationwide coronary care unit registry between 2003 and 2006 called the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART).1 Patients were divided into medically or invasively treated if revascularized within 14 days of admission. They found that for patients with worse renal function, the rate of performing revascularization was lower. This “risk paradox” has been seen in other registries, in which higher-risk patients are actually managed less intensively.5 They also found that 1-year mortality was substantially higher for those on dialysis or having an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <15 mL/min (≈55%) versus ≈40% for those with estimated GFR 15 to 29 mL/min and <5% for those with normal renal function. Thus, estimated GFR is clearly an important risk marker. They went on to compare mortality between medically managed patients and those who had revascularization and found overall a difference in mortality, with 36% lower adjusted mortality among those who had revascularization. They then split out the group by baseline renal function and found a lower mortality for those who had been revascularized versus not in most groups but not …

Should We Manage Patients With Non-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction With Renal Failure With an Invasive Strategy?