Paul W. Armstrong

Bio: Paul W. Armstrong is an academic researcher from University of Alberta. The author has contributed to research in topics: Myocardial infarction & Percutaneous coronary intervention. The author has an hindex of 114, co-authored 811 publications receiving 79389 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul W. Armstrong include University of Ottawa & Washington University in St. Louis.

ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction—Executive Summary A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction)

Abstract: Although considerable improvement has occurred in the process of care for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), room for improvement exists.[1–3][1][][2][][3] The purpose of the present guideline is to focus on the numerous advances in the diagnosis and management of patients

An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of streptokinase and tissue plasminogen activator and the roles of intravenous as compared with subcutaneous heparin as adjunctive therapy in acute myocardial infarction are unresolved questions. The current trial was designed to compare new, aggressive thrombolytic strategies with standard thrombolytic regimens in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Our hypothesis was that newer thrombolytic strategies that produce earlier and sustained reperfusion would improve survival. METHODS: In 15 countries and 1081 hospitals, 41,021 patients with evolving myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to four different thrombolytic strategies, consisting of the use of streptokinase and subcutaneous heparin, streptokinase and intravenous heparin, accelerated tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and intravenous heparin, or a combination of streptokinase plus t-PA with intravenous heparin. ("Accelerated" refers to the administration of t-PA over a period of 1 1/2 hours--with two thirds of the dose given in the first 30 minutes--rather than the conventional period of 3 hours.) The primary end point was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The mortality rates in the four treatment groups were as follows: streptokinase and subcutaneous heparin, 7.2 percent; streptokinase and intravenous heparin, 7.4 percent; accelerated t-PA and intravenous heparin, 6.3 percent, and the combination of both thrombolytic agents with intravenous heparin, 7.0 percent. This represented a 14 percent reduction (95 percent confidence interval, 5.9 to 21.3 percent) in mortality for accelerated t-PA as compared with the two streptokinase-only strategies (P = 0.001). The rates of hemorrhagic stroke were 0.49 percent, 0.54 percent, 0.72 percent, and 0.94 percent in the four groups, respectively, which represented a significant excess of hemorrhagic strokes for accelerated t-PA (P = 0.03) and for the combination strategy (P < 0.001), as compared with streptokinase only. A combined end point of death or disabling stroke was significantly lower in the accelerated-tPA group than in the streptokinase-only groups (6.9 percent vs. 7.8 percent, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this large-scale trial indicate that accelerated t-PA given with intravenous heparin provides a survival benefit over previous standard thrombolytic regimens

Universal definition of myocardial infarction.

Abstract: ![Graphic][1] Myocardial infarction is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. Coronary atherosclerosis is a chronic disease with stable and unstable periods. During unstable periods with activated inflammation in the vascular wall, patients may develop a myocardial infarction. Myocardial infarction may be a minor event in a lifelong chronic disease, it may even go undetected, but it may also be a major catastrophic event leading to sudden death or severe haemodynamic deterioration. A myocardial infarction may be the first manifestation of coronary artery disease, or it may occur, repeatedly, in patients with established disease. Information on myocardial infarction attack rates can provide useful data regarding the burden of coronary artery disease within and across populations, especially if standardized data are collected in a manner that demonstrates the distinction between incident and recurrent events. From the epidemiological point of view, the incidence of myocardial infarction in a population can be used as a proxy for the prevalence of coronary artery disease in that population. Furthermore, the term myocardial infarction has major psychological and legal implications for the individual and society. It is an indicator of one of the leading health problems in the world, and it is an outcome measure in clinical trials and observational studies. With these perspectives, myocardial infarction may be defined from a number of different clinical, electrocardiographic, biochemical, imaging, and pathological characteristics. In the past, a general consensus existed for the clinical syndrome designated as myocardial infarction. In studies of disease prevalence, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined myocardial infarction from symptoms, ECG abnormalities, and enzymes. However, the development of more sensitive and specific serological biomarkers and precise imaging techniques allows detection of ever smaller amounts of myocardial necrosis. Accordingly, current clinical practice, health care delivery systems, as well as epidemiology and clinical trials all require a … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif

Myocardial infarction redefined - A consensus document of the Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction

Abstract: This document was developed by a consensus conference initiated by Kristian Thygesen, MD, and Joseph S. Alpert, MD, after formal approval by Lars Ryden, MD, President of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and Arthur Garson, MD, President of the American College of Cardiology (ACC). All of the participants were selected for their expertise in the field they represented, with approximately one-half of the participants selected from each organization. Participants were instructed to review the scientific evidence in their area of expertise and to attend the consensus conference with prepared remarks. The first draft of the document was prepared during the consensus conference itself. Sources of funding appear in Appendix A. The recommendations made in this document represent the attitudes and opinions of the participants at the time of the conference, and these recommendations were revised subsequently. The conclusions reached will undoubtedly need to be revised as new scientific evidence becomes available. This document has been reviewed by members of the ESC Committee for Scientific and Clinical Initiatives and by members of the Board of the ESC who approved the document on April 15, 2000.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.