Journal: |
Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology
the Romanian Society for Cell Biology
|
Volume: |
|
Abstract: |
Background: Ischemic heart disease is the number one cause of mortality worldwide resulting in 7 million of the 53 million deaths in reported in 2010. Acute coronary syndrome is divided into ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), Non ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina. Patients with NSTEMI tend to have more comorbidities than STEMI patients.Most NSTEMI patients tend to have multi-vessel disease with total revascularization causing decrease in long term mortality and despite higher initial (in-hospital) mortality rates, single-stage complete coronary revascularization appears to be superior to culprit vessel–only PCI in terms of long-term mortality rates. Aim:To analyze the relation between multiple factors and intervention type either culprit or total revascularization in NSTEMI patients.Subjects and methods:This study was a cross-sectional study that included 70 cases. 35 patients underwent total revascularization, and 35 patients underwent culprit-only revascularization. The cases were selected from the department of cardiology at El Sahel Teaching Hospital, during the period from November 2020 to May 2021. Complete history was taken (personal & past & present & family) and complete physical examination (SBP, DBP, HR, RR, Temp and BMI). Analysis of the relation between multiple factors and intervention type either culprit or total revascularization in the included patients was done. Exclusion criteria were (Preexisting HFrEF, STEMI, Cardiogenic shock, HIV patients, Contraindications to DAPT, pregnancy, lactation, or patient refusal).Results: The differences in distribution of sex, DM, HTN, smoking status, dyslipidemia, and positive history of coronary artery disease between the intervention groups were not significant (P > 0.05).Conclusion:The intervention type either culprit or total revascularization in NSTEMI patients must be chosen according to the clinical profile of any patient as alone as we concluded that the studied factors showed insignificant relation with the intervention type among our studied cases.
|
|
|