Chesebro, J.H.

From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part II. (Article)

2003-10-14T00:00:00Z

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document will focus on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.

From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part I. (Article)

2003-10-07T00:00:00Z

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document focuses on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.

An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction (Article)

1993-01-01T00:00:00Z

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of streptokinase and tissue plasminogen activator and the roles of intravenous as compared with subcutaneous heparin as adjunctive therapy in acute myocardial infarction are unresolved questions. The current trial was designed to compare new, aggressive thrombolytic strategies with standard thrombolytic regimens in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Our hypothesis was that newer thrombolytic strategies that produce earlier and sustained reperfusion would improve survival. METHODS: In 15 countries and 1081 hospitals, 41,021 patients with evolving myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to four different thrombolytic strategies, consisting of the use of streptokinase and subcutaneous heparin, streptokinase and intravenous heparin, accelerated tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and intravenous heparin, or a combination of streptokinase plus t-PA with intravenous heparin. ("Accelerated" refers to the administration of t-PA over a period of 1 1/2 hours--with two thirds of the dose given in the first 30 minutes--rather than the conventional period of 3 hours.) The primary end point was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The mortality rates in the four treatment groups were as follows: streptokinase and subcutaneous heparin, 7.2 percent; streptokinase and intravenous heparin, 7.4 percent; accelerated t-PA and intravenous heparin, 6.3 percent, and the combination of both thrombolytic agents with intravenous heparin, 7.0 percent. This represented a 14 percent reduction (95 percent confidence interval, 5.9 to 21.3 percent) in mortality for accelerated t-PA as compared with the two streptokinase-only strategies (P = 0.001). The rates of hemorrhagic stroke were 0.49 percent, 0.54 percent, 0.72 percent, and 0.94 percent in the four groups, respectively, which represented a significant excess of hemorrhagic strokes for accelerated t-PA (P = 0.03) and for the combination strategy (P < 0.001), as compared with streptokinase only. A combined end point of death or disabling stroke was significantly lower in the accelerated-tPA group than in the streptokinase-only groups (6.9 percent vs. 7.8 percent, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this large-scale trial indicate that accelerated t-PA given with intravenous heparin provides a survival benefit over previous standard thrombolytic regimens