Background

Gender-related differences in mortality of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have been reported. The extent and causes of these differences in the Middle-East are poorly understood. We studied to what extent difference in outcome, specifically 1-year mortality are attributable to demographic, baseline clinical differences at presentation, and management differences between female and male patients.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year mortality of 7390 ACS patients in 65 hospitals in 6 Arabian Gulf countries were evaluated during 2008–2009, as part of the 2nd Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events (Gulf RACE-2). Women were older (61.3±11.8 vs. 55.6±12.4; P<0.001), more overweight (BMI: 28.1±6.6 vs. 26.7±5.1; P<0.001), and more likely to have a history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia or diabetes. Fewer women than men received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE), aspirin, clopidogrel, beta blockers or statins at discharge. They also underwent fewer invasive procedures including angiography (27.0% vs. 34.0%; P<0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (10.5% vs. 15.6%; P<0.001) and reperfusion therapy (6.9% vs. 20.2%; P<0.001) than men. Women were at higher unadjusted risk for in-hospital death (6.8% vs. 4.0%, P<0.001) and heart failure (HF) (18% vs. 11.8%, P<0.001). Both 1-month and 1-year mortality rates were higher in women than men (11% vs. 7.4% and 17.3% vs. 11.4%, respectively, P<0.001). Both baseline and management differences contributed to a worse outcome in women. Together these variables explained almost all mortality disparities.

Conclusions/Significance

Differences between genders in mortality appeared to be largely explained by differences in prognostic variables and management patterns. However, the origin of the latter differences need further study.

We describe the baseline characteristics, management, and in-hospital outcomes of patients in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with DM admitted with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and assess the influence of DM on in-hospital mortality. Data was analyzed from 1697 patients admitted to various hospitals in the UAE with a diagnosis of ACS in 2007 as part of the 1st Gulf RACE (Registry of Acute Coronary Events). Of 1697 patients enrolled, 668 (39.4%) were diabetics. Compared to patients without DM, diabetic patients were more likely to have a past history of coronary artery disease (49.1% versus 30.1%, P < 0.001), hypertension (67.2% versus 36%, P < 0.001), and prior revascularization (21% versus 11.4%, P < 0.001). They experienced more in-hospital recurrent ischemia (8.5% versus 5.1%; P = 0.004) and heart failure (20% versus 10%; P < 0.001). The mortality rate was 2.7% for diabetics and 1.6% for nondiabetics (P = 0.105). After age adjustment, in-hospital mortality increased by 3.5% per year of age (P = 0.016). This mortality was significantly higher in females than in males (P = 0.04). ACS patients with DM have different clinical characteristics and appear to have poorer outcomes.

We evaluated prevalence and clinical outcome of polyvascular disease (PolyVD) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Data for 7689 consecutive ACS patients were collected from the 2nd Gulf Registry of Acute Coronary Events between October 2008 and June 2009. Patients were divided into 2 groups (ACS with versus without PolyVD). All-cause mortality was assessed at 1 and 12 months. Patients with PolyVD were older and more likely to have cardiovascular risk factors. On presentation, those patients were more likely to have atypical angina, high resting heart rate, high Killip class, and GRACE risk scoring. They were less likely to receive evidence-based therapies. Diabetes mellitus, renal failure, and hypertension were independent predictors for presence of PolyVD. PolyVD was associated with worse in-hospital outcomes (except for major bleedings) and all-cause mortality even after adjusting for baseline covariates. Great efforts should be directed toward primary and secondary preventive measures.

Background

There is increasing interest to make primary data from published research publicly available. We aimed to assess the current status of making research data available in highly-cited journals across the scientific literature.

Methods and Results

We reviewed the first 10 original research papers of 2009 published in the 50 original research journals with the highest impact factor. For each journal we documented the policies related to public availability and sharing of data. Of the 50 journals, 44 (88%) had a statement in their instructions to authors related to public availability and sharing of data. However, there was wide variation in journal requirements, ranging from requiring the sharing of all primary data related to the research to just including a statement in the published manuscript that data can be available on request. Of the 500 assessed papers, 149 (30%) were not subject to any data availability policy. Of the remaining 351 papers that were covered by some data availability policy, 208 papers (59%) did not fully adhere to the data availability instructions of the journals they were published in, most commonly (73%) by not publicly depositing microarray data. The other 143 papers that adhered to the data availability instructions did so by publicly depositing only the specific data type as required, making a statement of willingness to share, or actually sharing all the primary data. Overall, only 47 papers (9%) deposited full primary raw data online. None of the 149 papers not subject to data availability policies made their full primary data publicly available.

Conclusion

A substantial proportion of original research papers published in high-impact journals are either not subject to any data availability policies, or do not adhere to the data availability instructions in their respective journals. This empiric evaluation highlights opportunities for improvement.

Summary

Background

Over the last 20 years, percutaneous transluminal balloon coronary angioplasty (PTCA), bare metal stents (BMS) and drug eluting stents (DES) succeeded each other as catheter-based treatments for coronary artery disease (CAD). We present an overview of randomised trials comparing these interventions with each other and with medical therapy in patients with nonacute CAD.

Methods

We searched Medline for trials contrasting at least two of the aforementioned interventions. Outcomes of interest were death, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), target lesion or vessel revascularisation (TLR/TVR), and any revascularisation. Random effects meta-analyses summarised head-to-head (direct) comparisons, and network meta-analyses integrated direct and indirect evidence.

Findings

61 eligible trials (25 388 patients) investigated 4 of 6 possible comparisons between the 4 interventions. No trials directly compared DES with medical therapy or PTCA. In all direct or indirect comparisons, succeeding advancements in PCI did not yield detectable improvements in deaths and MI. The risk ratio for indirect comparisons between DES and medical therapy was 0·96 (95% confidence interval: 0·60, 1·52) for death and 1·15 (0·73, 1·82) for MI. In contrast, there were sequential significant reductions in TLR/TVR with BMS compared to PTCA and with DES compared to BMS. The risk ratio for the indirect comparison between DES and PTCA for TLR/TVR was 0·30 (0·17, 0·51).

Interpretation

Sequential innovations in the catheter-based treatment of nonacute CAD showed no evidence of an impact on death or MI when compared with medical therapy.

BACKGROUND

Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is significantly associated with cryptogenic stroke (CS). However, even in patients with CS, a PFO can be an incidental finding. We sought to estimate the probability that a PFO in a patient with CS is incidental.

METHODS

A systematic search identified 23 case-control studies examining the prevalence of PFO in patients with CS versus controls with stroke of known-cause. Using simple assumptions and Bayes’ theorem we calculated the probability a PFO is incidental in patients with CS. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the odds ratio (OR) of a PFO in CS versus controls in different age populations, with or without atrial septal aneurysms (ASA), and were used to summarize across studies the probability that a PFO in CS is incidental.

RESULTS

The summary OR (95% confidence limits) for PFO in CS versus controls was 2.9 (CI 2.1, 4.0). The corresponding ORs for young and old patients (< or ≥ 55 years) were 5.1 (3.3, 7.8) and 2.0 (1.0, 3.7), respectively. The corresponding probabilities that a PFO in patients with CS is incidental were 33% (28%, 39%) in age-inclusive studies, 20% (16%, 25%) in younger patients, and 48% (34%, 66%) in older patients. These probabilities were much lower when an ASA was present.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with otherwise CS, approximately a third of discovered PFOs are likely to be incidental, and hence not benefit from closure. This probability is sensitive to patient characteristics such as age and the presence of an ASA, suggesting the importance of patient-selection in therapeutic decision-making.