联合应用氯吡格雷和质子泵抑制剂对急性冠状动脉综合征患者经皮冠状动脉介入术后预后的影响

目的探讨联合应用氯吡格雷和质子泵抑制剂（PPI）对急性冠状动脉综合征（ACS）患者经皮冠状动脉介入（PCI）术后预后的影响。方法回顾性分析2003年至2014年来自10个国家（加拿大，巴西，德国，波兰，荷兰，西班牙，意大利，希腊，中国，日本）15个临床中心的ACS合并PCI术后18077例患者的临床资料。研究氯吡格雷、PPI与ACS患者PCI术后预后的关系。比较患者的基本临床特征、既往病史、生化指标、药物应用，以及终点事件的发生率情况。通过Cox回归模型进行分析及倾向性评分调整其他可能影响患者的预后因素包括人口学信息（年龄、性别）和临床指标，计算PPI这一干预因素的风险比并评价其是否能够明显影响患者的预后。结果基于国际多中心Blee MACs注册登记研究分析，排除关键数据缺失过多患者2676例。根据纳入与排除标准及倾向性评分调整整理后，再排除患者6461例，最终列队患者8940例。根据患者用药不同，将患者分为氯吡格雷＋PPI组（4814例）和氯吡格雷组（4126例）。氯吡格雷＋PPI组患者女性、高血压病史、高脂血症病史、糖尿病史、外周血管疾病史、既往急性心肌梗死史、慢性肾功能不全病史、消化道溃疡病史、冠状动脉旁路移植术病史、既往出血病史、恶性肿瘤病史、不稳定型心绞痛、非sT段抬高型心肌梗死、心功能Killip分级≥2级、经皮腔内冠状动脉成形术、出院后血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂／血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂应用比例、年龄和入院时血肌酐水平明显高于氯吡格雷组[25．4％（1225／4814）比21．0％（865／4126）、59．9％（2882／4814）比49．2％（2032／4126）、48．3％（2327／4814）比42．7％（1762／4126）、26．4％（1272／4814）比22．1％（910／4126）、8．0％（386／4814）比5．6％（231／4126）、12．3％（593／4814）比10．6％（436／4126）、2．0％（98／4814）比0．7％（30／4126）、2．3％（112／4814）比1．0％（42／4126）、3．6％（172／4814）比2．2％（92／4126）、4．5％（219／4814）比3．0％（123／4126）、8．0％（387／4814）比4．7％（193／4126）、13．4％（644／4814）比9．1％（374／4126）、29．1％（1400／4814）比15．9％（656／4126）、14．5％（699／4814）比11．2％（462／4126）、56．0％（2697／4814）比55．7％（2300／4126）、75．5％（3633／4814）比68．6％（2829／4126）、（66±12）岁比（61±13）岁、（10±6）mg／L比（9±4）mg／L]；且入院时血红蛋白水平和出院后β受体阻滞剂应用比例明显低于氯吡格雷组[（138±19）g／L比（141±16）g／L、80．6％（3880／4814）比83．1％（3428／4126）]，差异均有统计学意义（均P〈0．05）。调整前，氯吡格雷＋PPI组主要终点事件（全因死亡／再发心肌梗死／出血）发生率明显高于氯吡格雷组，差异有统计学意义（风险比为1．331，95％置信区间为1．161-1．524）。调整后，氯吡格雷＋PPI组主要终点事件（全因死亡／再发心肌梗死／出血）发生率与氯吡格雷组比较，差异无统计学意义（风险比为1．036，95％置信区间为0．903-1．189）。结论ACS患者PCI术后联合应用PPI与氯吡格雷是合理的，尤其在胃肠道出血高危患者中。

Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries: A comprehensive review and future research directions

Acute coronary syndromes constitute a variety of myocardial injury presentations that include a subset of patients presenting with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries(MINOCA).This acute coronary syndrome differs from type 1 myocardial infarction(MI)regarding patient characteristics,presentation,physiopathology,management,treatment,and prognosis.Two-thirds of MINOCA subjects present ST-segment elevation;MINOCA patients are younger,are more often female and tend to have fewer cardiovascular risk factors.Moreover,MINOCA is a working diagnosis,and defining the aetiologic mechanism is relevant because it affects patient care and prognosis.In the absence of relevant coronary artery disease,myocardial ischaemia might be triggered by an acute event in epicardial coronary arteries,coronary microcirculation,or both.Epicardial causes of MINOCA include coronary plaque disruption,coronary dissection,and coronary spasm.Microvascular MINOCA mechanisms involve microvascular coronary spasm,takotsubo syndrome(TTS),myocarditis,and coronary thromboembolism.Coronary angiography with non-significant coronary stenosis and left ventriculography are first-line tests in the differential study of MINOCA patients.The diagnostic arsenal includes invasive and non-invasive techniques.Medical history and echocardiography can help indicate vasospasm or thrombosis,if one finite coronary territory is affected,or specify TTS if apical ballooning is present.Intravascular ultrasound,optical coherence tomography,and provocative testing are encouraged.Cardiac magnetic resonance is a cornerstone in myocarditis diagnosis.MINOCA is not a benign diagnosis,and its polymorphic forms differ in prognosis.MINOCA care varies across centres,and future multi-centre clinical trials with standardized criteria may have a positive impact on defining optimal cardiovascular care for MINOCA patients.

Social media in cardiology:Reasons to learn how to use it

Social media has changed the way we learn,educate,and interact with our peers.The dynamic nature of social media and their immediate availability through our portable devices(smartphones,tablets,smartwatches,etc.)is quickly transforming the way we participate in society.The scope of these digital tools is broad as they deal with many different aspects:Teaching and learning,case discussion,congresses coverage,peer to peer interaction,research are examples worth mentioning.The scientific societies considered more innovative,are promoting these tools between their members.These new concepts need to be known by the cardiologists to stay updated,as countless information is moving rapidly through these channels.We summarize the main reasons why learning how to use these tools to be part of the conversation is essential for the cardiologist in training or fully stablished.