In-hospital outcomes on patients submitted to primary versus rescue percutaneous coronary intervention

Abstracts

INTRODUÇÃO: Dificuldades de acesso em tempo hábil a centros que oferecem intervenção coronária percutânea (ICP) primária fazem com que a trombólise química seja a modalidade de reperfusão predominante em pacientes com infarto com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST (IAMCSST) no Brasil. Nesse cenário, a ICP de resgate torna-se importante opção para pacientes com insucesso na reperfusão. Comparamos os desfechos hospitalares dessas duas modalidades de ICP no IAMCSST. MÉTODOS: Entre agosto de 2006 e outubro de 2012, pacientes consecutivos do Registro Angiocardio, com IAMCSST, foram submetidos a ICP primária ou de resgate. Foi comparada a incidência de eventos cardíacos e cerebrovasculares adversos maiores (ECCAM) hospitalares. RESULTADOS: Avaliamos 801 pacientes submetidos a ICP primária (n = 599) ou a ICP de resgate (n = 202). No grupo ICP de resgate foi observada menor frequência de trombos, oclusões totais, fluxo TIMI 0/1 pré-procedimento e presença de circulação colateral. O emprego de stents foi similar, assim como a taxa de sucesso do procedimento (91,7% vs. 90,6%; P = 0,75). A incidência de ECCAM (6,3% vs. 6,9%; P = 0,89), óbito (4% vs. 4%; P > 0,99), acidente vascular cerebral (0,3% vs. 0; P = 0,99) e reinfarto (2,7% vs. 3%; P > 0,99) não diferiu entre os grupos. Na análise multivariada, dislipidemia [odds ratio (OR) 2,190, intervalo de confiança de 95% (IC 95%) 1,14-4,16; P = 0,01], classe funcional Killip III ou IV (OR 7,494, IC 95% 3,90-14,31; P < 0,01) e lesões com calcificação moderada/acentuada (OR 2,852, IC 95% 1,39-5,62; P < 0,01) foram as variáveis que melhor explicaram os ECCAM hospitalares. CONCLUSÕES: Neste registro contemporâneo, a ICP de resgate obteve resultados hospitalares similares aos da ICP primária.

Infarto do miocárdio; Angioplastia; Stents; Terapia trombolítica

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

^ITrainee physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^IIDoctor. Interventionist cardiologist physician and coordinator of the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^IIIMaster. Interventionist cardiologist physician and coordinator of the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^IVMaster. Interventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Rede D'Or São Luiz - Unidade Anália Franco. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^VInterventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^VIInterventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^VIIMaster. Interventionist cardiologist physician and coordinator of the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Vera Cruz. Campinas, SP, Brazil

^VIIIInterventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^IXInterventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^XCardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Regional do Vale do Paraíba. Taubaté, SP, Brazil

^XIInterventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Regional do Vale do Paraíba. Taubaté, SP, Brazil

^XIITrainee cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^XIIIInterventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Vera Cruz. Campinas, SP, Brazil

^XIVInterventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

^XVInterventionist cardiologist physician at the Hemodynamics and Interventional Cardiology Services of Hospital Bandeirantes. São Paulo, SP, Brazil

Correspondence

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Difficulties to reach centers that offer primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a timely manner turn intravenous thrombolysis into the predominant reperfusion mode in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in Brazil. In this scenario, rescue PCI becomes an important therapeutic option for patients who fail reperfusion. We have compared hospital outcomes of these two PCI modalities in STEMI.

METHODS: Between August 2006 to October 2012, consecutive patients with STEMI enrolled in the Angiocardio Registry were submitted to primary or rescue PCI. The incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was compared.

RESULTS: We evaluated 801 patients undergoing primary (n = 599) or rescue PCI (n = 202). In the rescue PCI group a lower frequency of thrombi, total occlusions, pre-procedure TIMI 0/1 flow and angiographically detectable collaterals was observed. The use of stents was similar, as well as the procedure success rates (91.7% vs 90.6%; P = 0.75). The incidence of MACCE (6.3% vs 6.9%; P = 0.89), death (4% vs 4%; P > 0.99), stroke (0.3% vs 0; P = 0.99) and reinfarction (2.7% vs 3%; P > 0.99) was not different between groups. In the multivariate analysis, the presence of dyslipidemia [odds ratio (OR) 2.190, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14-4.16; P = 0.01], Killip class III or IV (OR 7.494, 95% CI 3.90-14.31; P < 0.01) and lesions with moderate/severe calcification (OR 2.852, 95% CI 1.39-5.62; P < 0.01), were the variables that best explained in-hospital MACCE.

CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary registry, rescue and primary PCI had similar in-hospital results.

Descriptors: Myocardial infarction. Angioplasty. Stents. Thrombolytic therapy.

Acute myocardial infarction is an important cause of morbidity and mortality throughout the world. In Brazil, in 2010, over 80,000 deaths were recorded from acute ischemic heart syndromes.¹Blood flow return, either by chemical thrombolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), if performed within the first hours of symptom onset, is considered the best strategy for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), with proven clinical benefits and reduced mortality, to approximately 4% to 7%.^2-4

Primary PCI, despite the evidence of superiority in relation to chemical thrombolysis,^5-8 with lower rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and higher rates of patency in the culprit vessel, is not widely available in Brazil. Difficulties to reach hospitals that provide the intervention within a timely manner result in a relatively low number of primary PCIs in this country. It is estimated by the Department of Informatics of the Brazilian Unified Health System (Departamento de Informática do Sistema Único de Saúde - DATASUS) that only 13% to 15% of hospitalized patients with STEMI receive primary PCI as a reperfusion strategy. Although data from the National Cardiovascular Intervention Center (Central Nacional de Intervenções Cardiovasculares - CENIC) show a progressive increase in primary PCIs between 2006 and 2010, chemical thrombolysis remains the predominant reperfusion modality, used in over 40% of patients with STEMI.⁹ Rescue PCI is mandatory for patients who fail post-fibrinolytic reperfusion (segment resolution < 50% in 60 minutes), as it reduces the incidence of MACCE, when compared with re-thrombolysis or with conservative treatment.^10-12

There have been few reports in Brazil comparing primary and rescue PCI strategies, including the publication by Mattos et al.,¹³ using data from CENIC between 1997 and 2000, which showed a higher in-hospital mortality for rescue PCI in a sample in which the use of coronary stents was restricted to slightly more than half of the studied patients. This study aims at comparing in-hospital outcomes between contemporary primary and rescue PCI in STEMI.

METHODS

Patients

This study included consecutive patients from the Angiocardio registry with STEMI undergoing primary PCI or rescue PCI, from August 2006 to October 2012. This registry includes all patients undergoing PCI in Hospital Bandeirantes, Hospital Rede D'Or São Luiz - Unidade Anália Franco, and Hospital Leforte, all located in São Paulo, SP, Brazil; in Hospital Vera Hospital Cruz, Campinas, SP, Brazil; and in Hospital Regional Vale do Paraíba, Taubaté, SP, Brazil.

The clinical and angiographic characteristics were compared, as well as characteristics related to the procedure, rates of success, and incidence of MACCE at discharge. Data were prospectively collected and stored in a computerized database for further analysis.

Percutaneous coronary intervention

The technique, access route, and choice of material, including the use of thrombus aspiration catheters and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure, were at the discretion of the surgeons. Unfractionated heparin was used at a dose of 70 U/kgto 100 U/kg at the beginning of the procedure, except in patients who were already receiving low molecular-weight heparin. In these cases, a dose of 0.3 mg/kg was added intravenously, adjusted according to the last dose interval. All patients received combined antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid (dose of 100 to 200 mg/day) and clopidogrel (loading dose of 300 to 600 mg, and maintenance dose of 75 mg/day).

Angiographic analysis and definitions

The analyses were performed on at least two orthogonal projections by professionals who had experience with digital quantitative angiography. This study used the same angiographic criteria as CENIC. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association criteria were used to identify the type of lesion.⁴ Lesions were considered long when their length was > 20 mm. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) classification was used to classify pre- and post-procedure coronary flow.¹⁴ The rate of procedural success was defined as attaining angiographic success (residual stenosis < 30%, with TIMI 3 flow) and absence of MACCE, comprising death, stroke, reinfarction, and emergency coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Reinfarction was defined by the presence of new ischemic electrocardiographic changes and/or alterations in laboratory markers of myocardial necrosis and/or angiographic evidence of vessel-target occlusion. The overall mortality was considered for the analysis (death from any cause) during the hospitalization period.

Statistical Analysis

The data were stored in an Oracle-based Coreangio database, plotted on Excel spread sheets, and analyzed using SPSS software, version 15.0. Continuous variables were expressed as means and standard deviations, and categorical variables as absolute numbers and percentages. The associations between continuous variables were evaluated using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. The associations between categorical variables were evaluated by chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, or likelihood ratio, when appropriate. Significance level was set at P < 0.05. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of MACCE.

RESULTS

The present study evaluated 801 consecutive patients who underwent primary PCI (n = 599 patients; 664 vessels; 719 lesions) or rescue PCI (n = 202; patients; 218 vessels; 242 lesions). The rescue PCI group was, on average, three years younger and had a lower incidence of prior revascularization surgery (4.3% vs. 1%; P = 0.04). There was a tendency in this group of patients to have more advanced Killip class (P = 0.05) and higher incidence of anterior wall myocardial infarction (P = 0.07). The groups did not differ regarding the other clinical characteristics (Table 1).

Regarding the angiographic characteristics, a strong predominance of patients with one-vessel involvement (> 80%) was observed; the left anterior descending artery was the most often affected vessel, especially in the rescue PCI group (47.3% vs. 56.4%). Lower frequency of lesions with thrombi (45.8% vs. 31.8%; P < 0.01); total occlusions (61.9 % vs. 38%; P < 0.01); pre-procedure TIMI flow 0/1 (67.7% vs. 40.5%), and the presence of collateral circulation (28.7% vs. 16.1%; P < 0.01) was observed in patients undergoing rescue PCI (Table 2).

Regarding the characteristics of the procedures (Table 3), the rates of stent use were similar (83.1% vs. 84.9%, P = 0.62), with a low rate of drug-eluting stent (DES) use, especially in the rescue PCI group (7.1% vs. 1.6%; P = 0.01). Direct stenting was also more frequent in this group (24.3% vs. 44.3%; P < 0.01). Shorter stents were implanted in the rescue PCI group (20.8 mm vs. 19.5 mm, P = 0.01), with no differences between groups regarding stent diameter. A lower degree of pre-procedure lesion stenosis was also observed in this same group (95.2% vs. 90.7%; P < 0.01), and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used less frequently (68.3% vs. 4%; P < 0.01), as well as thrombus aspiration catheters (21.8% vs. 5.7%; P < 0.01). The procedure success rates were similar and > 90% in both groups.

The incidence of MACCE (6.3% vs. 6.9%; P = 0.89), in-hospital death (4% vs. 4%; P > 0.99), stroke (0.3 % vs. 0; P = 0.99), and reinfarction (2.7% vs. 3%; P > 0.99) did not differ between the groups. There were no cases of emergency CABG in the sample (Table 4).

In the univariate analysis, the variables age, smoking, dyslipidemia, presence of lesions with moderate/ severe calcification, prior CABG, chronic renal failure, Killip class III or IV, and use of IIb/IIIa glycoprotein inhibitors showed a significant association with the occurrence of MACCE. In the multivariate analysis, the presence of dyslipidemia (odds ratio [OR], 2.190; 95 % confidence interval [95% CI], 1.14 to 4.16; P = 0.01], Killip functional class III or IV (OR, 7.494; 95% CI, 3.90 to 14.31; P < 0.01), and lesions with moderate/ severe calcification (OR, 2.852; 95% CI, 1.39 to 5.62; P < 0.01) were the variables that best explained the presence of in-hospital MACCE (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

This study compared in-hospital outcomes between contemporary primary and rescue PCI in STEMI. The findings showed that the occurrence of MACCE was low and similar between groups, with an in-hospital mortality rate of 4%. Similar mortality rates have been recently published in the Strategic Reperfusion (With Tenecteplase and Antithrombotic Treatment) Early After Myocardial Infarction (STREAM) study in patients with less than three hours of STEMI symptom onset submitted to primary PCI strategy or to pharmaco invasive strategy with the use of tenecteplase and transfer to PCI (4.4% and 4.6%, respectively).¹⁴

Previous reports have demonstrated higher mortality (6% to 8%) in patients undergoing rescue PCI in relation to primary PCI.^13,15,16 In Brazil, Mattos et al.,¹³with data collected from the CENIC registry, evaluated 9,371 patients and also demonstrated higher mortality of rescue PCI compared with primary PCI (7.4% vs. 5.6%; P = 0.034). Conversely, Baer et al.¹⁷ showed similar results between the two modalities, concluding that the rescue intervention is the mandatory procedure for the treatment of STEMI, when chemical thrombolysis failure occurs. It is noteworthy that these publications showed a low rate of stenting (< 60 %) compared to current rates of contemporary PCI. In the present series, the use of stenting in both groups occurred in over 80% patients. Previous studies have shown that stenting (DES and BMS) favourably affects the prognosis of patients with STEMI, promoting TIMI coronary flow improvement, with lower rates of ventricular dysfunction and mortality.^18-20

Previous use of fibrinolytics in the rescue PCI group probably explains the lower thrombotic burden of the lesions and lower frequency of catheter use for thrombus aspiration and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, in addition to the decreased use of the direct stenting technique in the present sample. It also explains the higher incidence of TIMI 2/3 before the procedure, which is associated with better prognosis in patients with STEMI.^21,22 The Plasminogen-activator - Angioplasty Compatibility Trial (PACT),²³ which compared patients who received rt-PA at a dose of 50 mg or placebo prior to catheterization, showed a higher rate of patency of the vessel pre-PCI in the group receiving thrombolytic therapy, with increased left ventricular function preservation. The STREAM¹⁴study also showed higher pre-PCI TIMI 3 flow rates in patients previously submitted to thrombolysis (pharmaco invasive strategy).

Known predictors of failure and worse prognosis of PCI for myocardial infarction, the moderate/severe coronary calcification, and Killip class III or IV, next to a history of dyslipidemia, were the factors that best explained the occurrence of MACCE in this study.^2-4,24 Among them, the presence of more advanced Killip functional class raised the risk of MACCE by more than seven-fold.

Rescue PCI, unlike primary PCI, requires further studies to assess its contemporary results; however, in the present registry, it was shown to be a viable alternative for patients that did not have access to primary PCI and those who failed thrombolytic therapy.

Study limitations

Limitations to the present study are the retrospective analysis of data between two cohorts with non-adjusted clinical variables and the absence of late follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary registry, rescue PCI showed similar results to those of in-hospital primary PCI.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

• 1. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. DATASUS. Informações de saúde [Internet]. [citado 2013 maio 21]. Disponível em: http://www.datasus.gov.br
• 2. Mattos LA, Lemos Neto PA, Rassi A Jr, Marin-Neto JA, Sousa AGMR, Devito FS, et al. Diretrizes da Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia - Intervenção Coronária Percutânea e Métodos Adjuntos Diagnósticos em Cardiologia Intervencionista (II Edição - 2008). Arq Bras Cardiol. 2008;91(6 Supl 1):1-58.
• 3. European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions; Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di Mario C, Falk V, Folliguet T, et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2010;31(20):2501-55.
• 4. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Circulation. 2011;124(23): e574-651.
• 5. Widimský P, Groch L, Zelízko M, Aschermann M, Bednár F, Suryapranata H. Multicentre randomized trial comparing transport to primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis vs combined strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to a community hospital without a catheterization laboratory. The PRAGUE study. Eur Heart J. 2000;21(10): 823-31.
• 6. Dalby M, Bouzamondo A, Lechat P, Montalescot G. Transfer for primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2003; 108(15):1809-14.
• 7. Danchin N, Vaur L, Genès N, Etienne S, Angioï M, Ferrières J, et al. Treatment of acute myocardial infarction by primary coronary angioplasty or intravenous thrombolysis in the real world: one-year results from a nationwide French survey. Circulation. 1999;99(20):2639-44.
• 8. Zijlstra F, Hoorntje JCA, de Boer MJ, Reiffers S, Miedema K, Ottervanger JP, et al. Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(19):1413-9.
• 9. Matte BS, Bergoli LCC, Balvedi JA, Zago AC. Perfil da intervenção coronária percutânea no infarto agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST no Brasil de 2006 a 2010: Registro CENIC. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2011; 19(2):131-7.
• 10. Gershlick AH, Stephens-Lloyd A, Hughes S, Abrams KR, Stevens SE, Uren NG, et al. Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(26):2758-68.
• 11. Wijeysundera HC, Vijayaraghavan R, Nallamothu BK, Foody JM, Krumholz HM, Phillips CO, et al. Rescue angioplasty or repeat fibrinolysis after failed fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(4):422-30.
• 12. Moraes ERFL, Carvalho ACC. Angioplastia de resgate no infarto agudo do miocárdio. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2007;15(4): 400-7.
• 13. Mattos LA, Sousa AGMR, Pinto IMF, Silva ER, Carneiro JK, Sousa JE, et al. Uma comparação entre a intervenção coronariana percutânea de resgate e primária realizadas no infarto agudo do miocárdio: relato multicêntrico de 9.371 pacientes. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2004;82(5):434-9.
• 14. Armstrong PW, Gershlick AH, Goldstein P, Wilcox R, Danays T, Lambert Y, et al. Fibrinolysis or primary PCI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(15): 1379-87.
• 15. Abbottsmith CW, Topol EJ, George BS, Stack RS, Kereiakes DJ, Candela RJ, et al. Fate of patients with acute myocardial infarction with patency of the infarct-related vessel achieved with successful thrombolysis versus rescue angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;16(4):770-8.
• 16. Ross AM, Lundergan CF, Rohrbeck SC, Boyle DH, Brand M, Buller CH, et al. Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolysis: technical and clinical outcomes in a large thrombolysis trial. GUSTO-1 Angiographic Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 31(7):1511-7.
• 17. Bär F, Vainer J, Stevenhagen J, Neven K, Aalbregt R, Ophuis TO, et al. Ten-year experience with early angioplasty in 759 patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(1):51-8.
• 18. Magalhães MA, Brito Jr. FS, Almeida BO, Abizaid A, Gomes I, Nascimento TC, et al. Comparação dos stents farmacológicos vs. stents convencionais para o tratamento do infarto agudo do miocárdio com supradesnivelamento do segmento-ST: resultados do Registro EINSTEIN. Rev Bras Cardiol Invasiva. 2008;16(3):279-88.
• 19. Akasaka T, Yoshida K, Kawamoto T, Kaji S, Ueda Y, Yamamuro A, et al. Relation of phasic coronary flow velocity characteristics with TIMI perfusion grade and myocardial recovery after primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and rescue stenting. Circulation. 2000;101(20):2361-7.
• 20. Stone GW, Brodie BR, Griffin JJ, Costantini C, Morice MC, St Goar FG, et al. Clinical and angiographic follow-up after primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) stent pilot trial. Circulation. 1999;99(24):1548-54.
• 21. TIMI Study Group. The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial. Phase I findings. N Engl J Med. 1985;312(14):932-6.
• 22. Stone GW, Cox D, Garcia E, Brodie BR, Morice MC, Griffin J, et al. Normal flow (TIMI-3) before mechanical reperfusion therapy is an independent determinant of survival in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the primary angioplasty in myocardial infarction trials. Circulation. 2001;104(6):636-41.
• 23. Ross AM, Coyne KS, Reiner JS, Greenhouse SW, Fink C, Frey A, et al. A randomized trial comparing primary angioplasty with a strategy of short-acting thrombolysis and immediate planned rescue angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: the PACT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34(7);1954-62.
• 24. Sposito AC, Caramelli B, Fonseca FAH, Bertolami MC, Rassi A Jr, et al.; Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia. Departamento de Aterosclerose. IV Diretriz Brasileira sobre Dislipidemias e Prevenção da Aterosclerose. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2007;88 Supl 1:1-19.

In-hospital outcomes on patients submitted to primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus rescue

Fabio Peixoto Ganassin^I; Marcelo José de Carvalho Cantarelli^II; Hélio José Castello Jr^III; Rosaly Gonçalves^IV; Evandro Karlo Pracchia Ribeiro^V; João Batista de Freitas Guimarães^VI; Silvio Gioppato^VII; Julio Cesar Francisco Vardi^VIII; Leonardo Cao Cambra Almeida^IX; Ednelson Cunha Navarro^X; Higo Cunha Noronha^XI; Marcelo Mendes Farinazzo^XII; Thomas Conforti^XIII; Leonardo dos Santos Coelho^XIV; Roberto Simões de Almeida^XV

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  01 July 2013
• Date of issue
  June 2013

History

• Received
  20 Mar 2013
• Accepted
  04 June 2013