Sofia A Horvath

The Clinical Trial Center, LLC, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, United States

Are you Sofia A Horvath?

Claim your profile

Publications (4)9.26 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) admitted during nonregular working hours (off-hours) have been reported to have greater mortality than those admitted during regular working hours (on-hours), perhaps because of the lower availability of catheterization laboratory services and longer door-to-balloon times. This might not be the case, however, for hospital centers in which primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is invariably performed. We conducted a substudy using the Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction study data to determine whether the STEMI arrival time was associated with differing clinical outcomes. We identified all patients with STEMI admitted to a PCI-capable hospital who underwent primary PCI. Patients presenting during on-hours were compared to those presenting during off-hours. The primary outcome of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and net adverse clinical events was examined. We identified 2,440 patients (1,205 [49%] on-hours and 1,235 [51%] off-hours). Similar baseline characteristics were observed. The off-hour patients had a significantly longer door-to-balloon time (92 vs 75 minutes; p <0.0001) and total ischemic time (209 vs 194 minutes; p <0.0001). Despite these differences, the risk-adjusted all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and net adverse clinical events rates were similar for both groups during the in-hospital, 1-year, and 3-year follow-up. In conclusion, patients with STEMI presenting to primary PCI hospitals during off-hours might have slightly longer delays to revascularization; however, they experienced similar short- and long-term survival and clinical outcomes as those arriving during on-hours.
    The American journal of cardiology 01/2013; · 3.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The strategy of prehospital activation by the emergency medical system (EMS) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been poorly adopted among the US hospitals that currently offer 24/7 primary percutaneous coronary intervention. In this study, we report a single center experience after the implementation of this strategy. From 2008 to 2011, we identified a total 188 STEMI patients (age 65 ± 15 years) presenting via EMS for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Of these, 112 (59.6%) underwent prehospital activation (EMS group), whereas the remaining 76 (40.4%) underwent emergency department activation [emergency department (ED) group]. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between both groups. The overall median door-to-balloon (DTB) time was 49 ± 14 minutes. Patients undergoing prehospital activation had on average significantly lower overall DTB times (EMS 44 ± 11 minutes vs. ED 57 ± 15 minutes; P < 0.001). Concordantly, DTB times <60 minutes were much more commonly achieved with this strategy (EMS 95.5% vs. ED 64.5%; P < 0.001). Fallouts beyond the recommended 90-minute DTB time were seen among ED patients only. No difference in in-hospital death (EMS 5.4% vs. ED 6.6%; P = 0.75) or cumulative 30-day mortality (EMS 6.3% vs. ED 7.9%; P = 0.68) was observed between both groups. However, on average, EMS patients had higher postinfarct left ventricular ejection fraction (EMS 48 ± 9.5% vs. ED 39 ± 14.6%; P = 0.004). Differences in DTB time and left ventricular ejection fraction remained significant after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. In conclusion, the prehospital activation strategy is largely effective and should be systematically adopted in the treatment scheme of STEMI patients to lower mechanical reperfusion times and reduce the potential for untoward clinical outcomes.
    Critical pathways in cardiology 12/2012; 11(4):186-192.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiogenic shock remains a serious complication of acute myocardial infarction as it is associated with very poor prognosis. Despite the historical clinical benefits of the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), in some patients additional mechanical cardiac support is necessary. The recent introduction of the percutaneous Impella® 2.5 mechanical circulatory support system (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA, USA) represents a major advancement and has been used in these circumstances. Nevertheless, the data supporting the use of this technology alone, after, or in combination with the IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock is limited and the clinical benefits remain unproven. We herein provide an updated comprehensive overview of the literature supporting the use of the Impella 2.5 system compared to the use of IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock. We also discuss the potential role for combination therapy for a patient with refractory shock. We describe a case in which an IABP was used as a bail-out strategy to provide additional haemodynamic support in a patient with refractory cardiogenic shock after the Impella 2.5 system was in place. In selected cases of refractory cardiogenic shock, the use of combined therapy with both the the Impella 2.5 and IABP can provide enhanced circulatory support and could be considered an option to maintain haemodynamic support in these patients.
    EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 04/2012; 7(12):1453-60. · 3.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: In this study, we examined the predictive value of the left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP) in patients undergoing balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). BACKGROUND: The LVEDP is a useful indicator of hemodynamic status in patients with severe aortic stenosis. In BAV, decompensated heart failure is associated with worse outcomes. METHODS: We identified all consecutive patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent retrograde BAV at the Massachusetts General Hospital from 2004 to 2008. Patients were stratified and compared according to their baseline LVEDP into ≤ 15 mmHg, 16-20 mmHg, 21-25 mmHg and ≥ 26 mmHg. Procedural and in-hospital outcomes and adverse events were compared. Multivariate logistic regression was used for the adjusted analysis. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients with a mean age of 83±11 years underwent BAV. Of these, the LVEDP was ≤15 mmHg in 29 (26%), 16-20 mmHg in 41 (37%), 21-25 mmHg in 16 (14%), and ≥26mmHg in 25 (23%) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar among the 4 groups. Noticeably, patients with high LVEDP levels had significantly higher rates of the combined endpoint of in-hospital death, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiopulmonary arrest and tamponade was (p=0.02). Peri-procedural MI was more common among those with higher LVEDP (16% vs. 2.3%; p=0.04). Multivariate analysis revealed LVEDP (OR 1.08, for each mmHg increase in pressure, 95 % C.I. 1.02 - 1.14), small LV chamber size, and NYHA class as independent predictors of adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The LVEDP is an important independent predictor of poor in-hospital outcome during BAV. In these patients, the immediate hemodynamic status may be more important than the baseline left ventricular systolic function. Hemodynamic optimization prior to or during BAV should be considered and may be beneficial. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions 04/2012; · 2.51 Impact Factor