Urinary MCP-1 concentrations completely separated critically ill patients with acute kidney injury from those without, demonstrating its potential as a specific biomarker for AKI.
Case-Control (n=28)
No
Does palliative treatment compared to conservative or reperfusion treatment affect in-hospital mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
p-value: p=<0.01
Objective Compliance with guidelines is increasingly used to benchmark the quality of hospital care, however, very little is known on patients admitted with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and treated palliatively. This study aimed to evaluate the baseline characteristics and outcomes of these patients. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Eighty-two Swiss hospitals enrolled patients from 1997 to 2014. Participants All patients with ACS enrolled in the AMIS Plus registry (n=45 091) were analysed according to three treatment groups: palliative treatment, defined as use of aspirin and analgesics only and no reperfusion; conservative treatment, defined as any treatment including antithrombotics or anticoagulants, heparins, P2Y12 inhibitors, GPIIb/IIIa but no pharmacological or mechanical reperfusion; and reperfusion treatment (thrombolysis and/or percutaneous coronary intervention during initial hospitalisation). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality and the secondary measure was 1-year mortality. Results Of the patients, 1485 (3.3%) were palliatively treated, 11 119 (24.7%) were conservatively treated and 32 487 (72.0%) underwent reperfusion therapy. In 1997, 6% of all patients were treated palliatively and this continuously decreased to 2% in 2013. Baseline characteristics of palliative patients differed in comparison with conservatively treated and reperfusion patients in age, gender and comorbidities (all pConclusions Patients with ACS treated palliatively were older, sicker, with more heart failure at admission and very high in-hospital mortality. While refraining from more active therapy may often constitute the most humane and appropriate approach, we think it is important to also evaluate these patients and include them in registries and outcome evaluations. Clinical trial number ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01 305 785.
Munshi et al. (Fri,) conducted a case-control in Acute Kidney Injury (n=28). Urinary MCP-1 vs. Patients without AKI was evaluated on Urinary MCP-1 concentration (p=<0.01). Urinary MCP-1 concentrations completely separated critically ill patients with acute kidney injury from those without, demonstrating its potential as a specific biomarker for AKI.