4.7 Article

Therapeutic value of eptifibatide at community hospitals transferring patients to tertiary referral centers early after admission for acute coronary syndromes

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)01143-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES We aimed ro evaluate the benefits of the glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa antagonist, eptifibatide, after patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were admitted to hospital that approach revascularization; far ACS through early transfer to tertiary referral centers. BACKGROUND Across a variety of hospital settings, GP IIb/IIIa inhibition, after patients were admitted to the hospital for non-ST segment elevation ACS, is as associated with a reduction in death or myocardial infarction (MI) before and during a percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS The outcomes of 429 patients from 153 sites in the Platlet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in unstable angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy (PURSUIT) trial who were transferred during study drug infusion (transfer patients), were compared with those of 1,987 patients who either remained in the hospital at those sited or were transferred after study drug termination (nontransfer patients). RESULTS The baseline characteristics of transfer and nontransfer patients were similar. Patients receiving eptifibatide were transferred less frequently than those receiving placebo 16% vs. 20%, p = 0.014). Transfer patients underwent more procedures and experienced a greater 30-day incidence of death or MI, as compared with nontransfer patients (21% vs. 12%, p = 0.001). Eptifibatide was associated with a reduction in death or MI through 30 days, independent of transfer status (2.5% absolute reduction), as well as for those transferred (5.5% absolute reduction). CONCLUSIONS For patients with ACS admitted to community hospitals, eptifibatide is associated with a reduced need for transfer and improves clinical outcomes. (C) 2000 by the American College of Cardiology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据