Asian Science Citation Index is committed to provide an authoritative, trusted and significant information by the coverage of the most important and influential journals to meet the needs of the global scientific community.  
ASCI Database
308-Lasani Town,
Sargodha Road,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-41-8815544
Contact Via Web
Suggest a Journal
 
Articles by D. R Holmes
Total Records ( 4 ) for D. R Holmes
  E. L Hannan , Y Zhong , M Racz , A. K Jacobs , G Walford , K Cozzens , D. R Holmes , R. H Jones , M Hibberd , D Doran , D Whalen and S. B. King
 

Background— The benefit of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (P-PCI) for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been well documented. However, controversy still exists as to whether PCI should be expanded to hospitals without coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

Methods and Results— Patients who were discharged after PCI for STEMI between January 1, 2003, and December 12, 2006, in P-PCI centers (hospitals with no coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and PCI only for patients with STEMI) were propensity matched with patients in full service centers, and mortality and subsequent revascularization rates were compared. For patients undergoing PCI, there were no differences for in-hospital/30-day mortality (2.3% for P-PCI centers versus 1.9% for full service centers [P=0.40]), emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery immediately after PCI (0.06% versus 0.35%, P=0.06), 3-year mortality (7.1% versus 5.9%, P=0.07), or 3-year subsequent revascularization (23.8% versus 21.5%, P=0.52). P-PCI centers had a lower same/next day coronary artery bypass graft rate (0.23% versus 0.69%, P=0.046) and higher repeat target vessel PCI rates (12.1% versus 9.0%, P=0.003). For patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI, P-PCI centers had higher in-hospital mortality (28.5% versus 22.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.75).

Conclusions— No differences between P-PCI centers and full service centers were found in in-hospital/30-day mortality, the need for emergency surgery, 3-year mortality or subsequent revascularization, but P-PCI centers had higher repeat target vessel PCI rates and higher mortality rates for patients who did not undergo PCI. P-PCI centers should be monitored closely, including the monitoring of patients with STEMI who did not undergo PCI.

  M Singh , D. R Holmes , R. J Lennon and C. S. Rihal
  Background—

Existing models for outcome after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) lack assessment of long-term prognosis. Our goal was to derive 1- and 5-year mortality and mortality/myocardial infarction (MI) risk models for PCI outcomes from simple, easily obtainable clinical and laboratory variables.

Methods and Results—

Using the Mayo Clinic registry, we analyzed long-term mortality and mortality/MI following PCIs on 9165 unique patients from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2007. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model the calculated risk score and major procedural complications. A total of 1243 patients died, and 696 had MI. Separate risk models derived from clinical, procedural, and laboratory characteristics were made for mortality and mortality/MI. Older age, comorbid conditions, low ejection fraction, acute MI, history of smoking, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, 3-vessel disease, procedural failure, ventricular arrhythmia during PCI, and low medication score were predictors of long-term mortality and mortality/MI. Simple integer scores stratified patients into low, moderate, high, and very high risk for subsequent events. Models had adequate goodness of fit, and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.786 and 0.728 for mortality and mortality/MI, respectively, indicating good overall discrimination. Bootstrap analysis indicated that the model was not overfit to the available data set.

Conclusions—

Easily obtainable variables can be combined into a convenient risk scoring system at the time of patient dismissal following PCI to accurately predict long-term mortality and mortality/MI. This model may be useful for providing patients with individualized, evidence-based estimates of long-term risk.

  D. M Nestler , A Noheria , L. H Haro , L. G Stead , W. W Decker , L. N Scanlan Hanson , R. J Lennon , C. C Lim , D. R Holmes , C. S Rihal , M. R Bell and H. H. Ting
 

Background— American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend a door-to-balloon time (DTB) <90 minutes for nontransferred patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Systems of care to achieve and sustain this DTB performance over several years have not been previously reported.

Methods and Results— The Mayo Clinic STEMI protocol was implemented in April 2004 and included activation of the cardiac catheterization laboratory by the emergency medicine physician; a single call system to activate the catheterization laboratory; catheterization laboratory staff arrival within 20 to 30 minutes of activation; and real-time performance feedback within 24 to 48 hours. Data were collected on nontransferred STEMI patients. The preimplementation group (June 2002 to March 2004) comprised 96 patients with a median DTB of 97 (interquartile range, 82, 130) minutes, and 40% had a DTB <90 minutes. The postimplementation group (May 2004 to March 2008) comprised 322 patients with a median DTB of 67 (interquartile range, 55, 82) minutes, and 81% had a DTB <90 minutes. Postimplementation DTB was significantly shorter than preimplementation DTB (P<0.001). In the 4-year follow-up after protocol implementation, the DTB performance remained stable over time (P=0.41).

Conclusions— The Mayo Clinic STEMI protocol implemented strategies to reduce DTB for nontransferred patients with STEMI. DTB was significantly reduced, and the results were sustained over the 4-year follow-up period. Our experience demonstrates the effectiveness and durability of process changes targeting timeliness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

  D. R Holmes , F. V Aguirre , R Aplin , R. J Lennon , D. M Nestler , M. R Bell , C. S Rihal and H. H. Ting
  Background—

Circadian rhythms with regard to time of symptom onset for patients with acute myocardial infarction have been observed, although their relationship to outcomes has been debated. We evaluated these rhythms in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction as a function of the 24-hour circadian cycle.

Methods and Results—

The relationship between onset of symptoms during the 24-hour circadian cycle and prehospital delays from symptom onset to hospital arrival, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital death was assessed in 2143 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting from 2004–2008 at 1 of 3 tertiary-care healthcare ST-elevation myocardial infarction systems. There was a significant association between time of onset and the circadian cycle, with the greatest percentage (39%) of patients experiencing onset between 8 am and 3 pm (P<0.001). Time of onset was associated with prehospital delay and timeliness of reperfusion. Patients with onset from 12 am to 5:59 am had median prehospital delays of 121 minutes versus 70 minutes from 12 pm to 5:59 pm (P<0.001). Patients with onset time from 12 am to 5:59 am had median door-to-balloon times of 75 minutes versus 60 minutes from 6 am to 11:59 am (P<0.001). Using multivariable modeling to control for baseline patient characteristics, prehospital delay, and timeliness of reperfusion, there was no significant association between time of symptom onset with in-hospital death.

Conclusions—

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction exhibit significant circadian patterns in symptom onset, prehospital delay, and timeliness of reperfusion. Patients who develop symptoms from 12 am to 5:59 am present with longer prehospital delays and have longer door-to-balloon times. After multivariable adjustment, there was no significant association between circadian patterns of time of onset and in-hospital death.

 
 
 
Copyright   |   Desclaimer   |    Privacy Policy   |   Browsers   |   Accessibility