Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary intervention

A meta-analysis of wenxin granule and metoprolol for the treatment of coronary heart disease and arrhythmia

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aimed to systematically and comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of wenxin granule (WXG) and metoprolol in the treatment of elderly patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and arrhythmia.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases of the Cochrane Library, PUBMED, EMBASE, CNKI, Wangfang, and CBM from initiation to May 1, 2022, and selected a set of clinical indicators for WXG and metoprolol for CHD and arrhythmia. The methodological quality of the included studies was analyzed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects or random-effects model, and a meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials involving 722 patients with CHD and arrhythmia were included. Our findings showed that WXG and metoprolol showed better effects than metoprolol alone on electrocardiogram change (odds ratio [OR] = 7.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.48, 35.07]), clinical symptom improvement (OR = 5.83, 95% CI [1.52, 22.35]), overall clinical effect (OR = 5.51, 95% CI [2.65, 11.44], P < .001), atrial premature beat (mean difference [MD] = -109.85, 95% CI [-171.25, -48.46], P < .001), ventricular premature beat (MD = -195.43, 95% CI [-334.09, -56.77], P < .001), borderline premature beat (MD = -42.92, 95% CI [-77.18, -8.67], P = .01), short-burst ventricular tachycardia (MD = -35.98, 95% CI [-39.66, -32.30], P < .001), ST segment reduction (MD = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.40], P < .001), ST segment decrease duration (MD = -0.76, 95% CI [-0.95, -0.57], P < .001). However, no significant differences were observed in adverse reactions (OR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.27, 1.09], P = .09).

CONCLUSION

Compared to metoprolol alone, WXG and metoprolol can more effectively manage patients with CHD and arrhythmia. However, additional large-scale, multicenter, rigorous, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are warranted to verify the present findings.

Comparison of carvedilol versus metoprolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The existing meta-analyses and randomized studies on comparing the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol are of poor quality, with small sample sizes, and involve a homogeneous population. Therefore, to provide new evidence-based medical evidence for clinical treatment, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the mortality benefits of carvedilol with metoprolol head to head and determine the better beta-blocker in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) setting.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases including Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, Wanfang Data, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library will be searched in May 2021 by 2 independent reviewers. The protocol was written following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement guidelines. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes include complex cardiovascular events, sudden death, cardiovascular death, reinfarction, revascularization, readmission, ventricular arrhythmias, and drug withdrawal for all causes except death. All outcomes are pooled on random-effect model. A P value of <.05 is considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

The review will add to the existing literature by showing compelling evidence and improved guidance in clinic settings.

OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/VSTJC.

Comparison of Metoprolol Versus Carvedilol After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Beta-blockers are typically prescribed following myocardial infarction (MI), but no specific beta-blocker is recommended. Of 7,057 patients enrolled in the OBTAIN multi-center registry of patients with acute MI, 4142 were discharged on metoprolol and 1487 on carvedilol. Beta-blocker dose was indexed to the target daily dose used in randomized clinical trials (metoprolol-200 mg; carvedilol-50 mg), reported as %. Beta-blocker dosage groups were >0% to12.5% (n = 1,428), >12.5% to 25% (n = 2113), >25% to 50% (n = 1,392), and >50% (n = 696). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate 3-year survival. Correction for baseline differences was achieved by multivariable adjustment. Patients treated with carvedilol were older (64.4 vs 63.3 years) and had more comorbidities: hypertension, diabetes, prior MI, congestive heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and a longer length of stay. Mean doses for metoprolol and carvedilol did not significantly differ (37.2 ± 27.8% and 35.8 ± 31.0%, respectively). The 3-year survival estimates were 88.2% and 83.5% for metoprolol and carvedilol, respectively, with an unadjusted HR = 0.72 (p <0.0001), but after multivariable adjustment HR = 1.073 (p = 0.43). Patients in the >12.5% to 25% dose category had improved survival compared with other dose categories. Subgroup analysis of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, showed worse survival with metoprolol versus carvedilol (adjusted HR = 1.281; 95% CI: 1.024 to 1.602, p = 0.03). In patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, there were no differences in survival with carvedilol versus metoprolol. In conclusion, overall survival after acute MI was similar for patients treated with metoprolol or carvedilol, but may be superior for carvedilol in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%.

ArrhythmoGenoPharmacoTherapy

This review is focusing on the understanding of various factors and components governing and controlling the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias including (i) the role of various ion channel-related changes in the action potential (AP), (ii) electrocardiograms (ECGs), (iii) some important arrhythmogenic mediators of reperfusion, and pharmacological approaches to their attenuation. The transmembrane potential in myocardial cells is depending on the cellular concentrations of several ions including sodium, calcium, and potassium on both sides of the cell membrane and active or inactive stages of ion channels. The movements of Na+, K+, and Ca2+ via cell membranes produce various currents that provoke AP, determining the cardiac cycle and heart function. A specific channel has its own type of gate, and it is opening and closing under specific transmembrane voltage, ionic, or metabolic conditions. APs of sinoatrial (SA) node, atrioventricular (AV) node, and Purkinje cells determine the pacemaker activity (depolarization phase 4) of the heart, leading to the surface manifestation, registration, and evaluation of ECG waves in both animal models and humans. AP and ECG changes are key factors in arrhythmogenesis, and the analysis of these changes serve for the clarification of the mechanisms of antiarrhythmic drugs. The classification of antiarrhythmic drugs may be based on their electrophysiological properties emphasizing the connection between basic electrophysiological activities and antiarrhythmic properties. The review also summarizes some important mechanisms of ventricular arrhythmias in the ischemic/reperfused myocardium and permits an assessment of antiarrhythmic potential of drugs used for pharmacotherapy under experimental and clinical conditions.

Effects of early intravenous low-dose of metoprolol on cardiac sympathetic activities and electrophysiological properties in myocardial infarction heart

This study observed the effects of early intravenous low-doses of metoprolol on cardiac sympathetic activities and electrophysiological properties in myocardial infarction (MI) dogs. Thirty two mongrel dogs with the first diagonal branch of the left anterior descending coronary artery ligated were randomly divided into three groups: The low-dose group was given metoprolol 0.6 mg/kg immediately by intravenous injection (n=12); the target-dose group was given metoprolol 1.6 mg/kg (n=12), and the control group was injected with normal saline at the same dose of the target-dose group (n=8). Norepinephrine (NE) and epinephrine (E) levels in the coronary sinus (CS) blood as well as the ventricular effective refractory period (ERP) were all measured during the experiments. We found that NE and E concentrations in the three groups were all increased compared with the previous measurement before ligation. ERP values after MI were significantly decreased in all three groups compared with the first measurements. The three groups all exhibited uneven shortness of ERP among different regions, with significant shortness in infarcted area. Furthermore, there was no difference between the low and target-dose of metoprolol in the reduction of regional ERP, and the same effect was also observed in induced arrhythmias. In conclusion, a lower dose of metoprolol performed similarly as target-dose in reducing the catecholamine concentrations in dogs with MI. Our study demonstrated that a lower dose of metoprolol may be reasonable compared with the target-dose in β-blocker therapy due to similar effect and lower toxicity.

Effects of Bisoprolol Are Comparable with Carvedilol in Secondary Prevention of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Although the benefits of carvedilol have been demonstrated in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), very few studies have evaluated the efficacy of bisoprolol in the secondary prevention of acute myocardial infarction (MI) in patients treated with PCI. We hypothesized that the effect of bisoprolol would not be different from carvedilol in post-MI patients. A total of 13,813 patients who underwent PCI were treated either with carvedilol or bisoprolol at the time of discharge. They were enrolled from the Korean Acute MI Registry (KAMIR). After 1:2 propensity score matching, 1,806 patients were enrolled in the bisoprolol group and 3,612 patients in the carvedilol group. The primary end point was the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), which was defined as cardiac death, nonfatal MI, target vessel revascularization, and coronary artery bypass surgery. The secondary end point was defined as all-cause mortality, cardiac death, nonfatal MI, any revascularization, or target vessel revascularization. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics by propensity score matching, the MACE-free survival rate was not different between the groups (HR=0.815, 95% CI:0.614-1.081, p=0.156). In the subgroup analysis, the cumulative incidence of MACEs was lower in the bisoprolol group in patients having a Killip class of III or IV than in the carvedilol group (HR=0.512, 95% CI: 0.263-0.998, p=0.049). The incidence of secondary end points was similar between the two beta-blocker groups. In conclusion, the benefits of bisoprolol were comparable with those of carvedilol in the secondary prevention of acute MI.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Metoprolol and Carvedilol on Mortality Benefits in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Although carvedilol, a nonselective beta-blocker with alpha-adrenergic blocking and multiple ancillary activities, has been demonstrated to be superior to metoprolol in chronic heart failure, it remains unclear whether the superiority of carvedilol still exists in myocardial infarction (MI). Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the 2 drugs in patients with MI. All RCTs that compared either 2 of the following interventions, carvedilol, metoprolol, and placebo, for the treatment of MI were included. The Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched thoroughly for potential eligible studies. Finally, 12 RCTs involving 61,081 patients were included. Pooled results showed that compared with placebo, carvedilol and metoprolol significantly reduced composite cardiovascular events (risk ratio [RR] 0.63; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.41, 0.85 for carvedilol; RR 0.78; 95% CrI 0.65, 0.93 for metoprolol) and re-infarction (RR 0.57; 95% CrI 0.37, 0.84 for carvedilol; RR 0.77; 95% CrI 0.62, 0.91 for metoprolol) in patients with MI. However, neither carvedilol nor metoprolol showed significant benefits on all-cause death, cardiovascular death, revascularization, and rehospitalization. Also, no obvious difference was found when comparing carvedilol and metoprolol on primary or secondary outcomes. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence supporting the superiority of carvedilol over metoprolol for the treatment of MI. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Ivabradine in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Rationale for Use in Addition to and Beyond Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Heart rate is an established prognostic marker for longevity and is an important contributor in the pathophysiology of various cardiovascular diseases, including ischemic heart disease and heart failure. Most ischemic episodes are triggered by an increase in heart rate, which causes an imbalance between myocardial oxygen delivery and consumption. In addition, increased heart rate is a modifiable risk factor for chronic heart failure. Ivabradine, an inhibitor of I_f ion channels, is an approved second-line anti-ischemic drug for the treatment of angina. Ivabradine has been shown to decrease the risk of hospitalization in patients with chronic heart failure who were previously treated with β-blockers, renin-angiotensin system blockers or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. This review describes the rationale for the pathophysiological and clinical use of ivabradine as an anti-ischemic agent in patients with stable coronary disease and highlights its benefits and drawbacks compared with other first- and second-line anti-anginal drugs. The review also highlights the role of ivabradine as a treatment for patients with high-risk coronary artery disease in whom first-line anti-anginal drugs are insufficient or inadequate and percutaneous coronary intervention is contraindicated or revascularization is incomplete or unsuitable.

Nebivolol versus Carvedilol or Metoprolol in Patients Presenting with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Left Ventricular Dysfunction

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of nebivolol, carvedilol or metoprolol succinate on the outcome of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by left ventricular dysfunction.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients (n = 172, aged 28-87 years) with AMI and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.45 were randomized to the nebivolol (n = 55), carvedilol (n = 60) and metoprolol succinate (n = 57) groups. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and composite event rates of nonfatal MI, cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization due to unstable angina pectoris or heart failure, stroke or revascularization during the 12-month follow-up were compared among the groups using the x03C7;2 test, t test or log-rank test as appropriate.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in the three groups. The composite end point during follow-up was lower in the patients treated with nebivolol than those treated with metoprolol (14.5 vs. 31.5%; p = 0.03). However, event rates were similar between the patients treated with carvedilol and those treated with the metoprolol (20.3 vs. 31.5%, p > 0.05) and between the patients treated with nebivolol and carvedilol (14.5 vs. 20.3%, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The patients treated with nebivolol experienced 12-month cardiovascular events at a lower rate than those treated with metoprolol succinate. However, event rates were similar between the carvedilol and the metoprolol succinate groups and between the nebivolol and the carvedilol groups.

Impact of Carvedilol versus β1-selective β blockers (bisoprolol, metoprolol, and nebivolol) in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Although β blocker (BB) has constituted one of the mainstays of evidence-based therapy for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the comparative efficacy of different BBs remains uncertain. We sought to determine the comparative effectiveness of nonselective BB carvedilol and the most frequently prescribed β1-selective BBs (bisoprolol, metoprolol, and nebivolol) in patients with AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total of 7,863 patients were selected from the prospective national AMI registry, and patients were divided into carvedilol group (n = 6,231) and β1-selective BB group (n = 1,632) at hospital discharge. The primary end point was all-cause death or MI during follow-up. During a mean follow-up of 243 ± 144 days, all-cause death or MI occurred in 94 patients (1.5%) in the carvedilol group versus 31 patients (1.9%) in the β1-selective BB group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.22, p = 0.32). This result was consistent across various risk subgroups. The risks of all-cause death, cardiac death, and MI were also similar between the groups. After propensity-score matching, no difference was observed in the rate of all-cause death or MI (1.7% in the carvedilol vs 1.9% in the β1-selective BB group, adjusted hazard ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.46, p = 0.55). In conclusion, no differences in the risk of all-cause death or MI were observed between the carvedilol and β1-selective BB groups in contemporary practice of the treatment for AMI.

β-blockers and cardiovascular events in patients with and without myocardial infarction: post hoc analysis from the CHARISMA trial

BACKGROUND

The long-term efficacy of β-blockers in patients with and without myocardial infarction (MI) is controversial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is post hoc analysis from the Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management, and Avoidance (CHARISMA) trial of 4772 patients with prior MI, 7804 patients with known atherothrombosis, and 2101 patients with risk factors alone but without heart failure. Primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal MI, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality. The cohorts were divided into 2 groups based on baseline β-blocker use. In the propensity score-matched prior MI cohort, after 28 months of follow-up, β-blocker use was associated with a 31% lower risk of the primary outcome (70 [7.1%] versus 100 [10.2%]; hazards ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.94; P=0.021), driven by a lower risk of recurrent MI (33 [3.4%] versus 48 [4.9%]; hazards ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-1.00; P=0.049) with no difference in mortality (52 [5.3%] versus 66 [6.7%]; P=0.20). In the known atherothrombotic disease and the risk factors alone cohorts, β-blocker use was not associated with lower ischemic outcomes, whereas a trend toward a higher risk of stroke (3.5% versus 1.5%; hazards ratio, 2.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-4.92; P=0.079) was observed in the risk factors alone cohort. This higher stroke risk was significant in the regression model adjusted to the propensity score (hazards ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-5.44; P=0.006) and in the multivariable models.

CONCLUSIONS

β-blocker use in patients with prior MI but no heart failure was associated with a lower composite cardiovascular outcome driven by lower risk of recurrent MI with no difference in mortality. However, β-blocker use was not associated with lower cardiovascular events in those without MI, with a suggestion of inferior outcome with regard to stroke risk.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00050817.

Type of β-blocker use among patients with versus without diabetes after myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Discharge β-blocker prescription after myocardial infarction (MI) is recommended for all eligible patients. Numerous β-blocker choices are presently available with variable glycometabolic effects, which could be an important consideration in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Whether patients with DM preferentially receive β-blockers with favorable metabolic effects after MI and if this choice is associated with better glycemic control postdischarge is unknown.

METHODS

Among patients from 24 US hospitals enrolled in an MI registry (2005-2008), we investigated the frequency of "DM-friendly" β-blocker prescription at discharge by DM status. β-Blockers were classified as DM-friendly (eg, carvedilol and labetalol) or non-DM-friendly (eg, metoprolol and atenolol), based on their effects on glycemic control. Hierarchical, multivariable logistic regression examined the association of DM with DM-friendly β-blocker use. Among DM patients, we examined the association of DM-friendly β-blockers with worsened glycemic control at 6 months after MI.

RESULTS

Of 4,031 MI patients, 1,382 (34%) had DM. β-Blockers were prescribed at discharge in 93% of patients. Diabetes mellitus-friendly β-blocker use was low regardless of DM status, although patients with DM were more likely to be discharged on a DM-friendly β-blocker compared with patients without DM (13.5% vs 10.3%, P = .003), an association that remained after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13-1.77). There was a trend toward a lower risk of worsened glucose control at 6 months in DM patients prescribed DM-friendly versus non-DM-friendly β-blockers (Relative Risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.08).

CONCLUSION

Most DM patients were prescribed non-DM-friendly β-blockers-a practice that was associated with a trend toward worse glycemic control postdischarge. Although in need of further confirmation in larger studies, our findings highlight an opportunity to improve current practices of β-blockers use in patients with DM.

Meta-analysis of carvedilol versus beta 1 selective beta-blockers (atenolol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, and nebivolol)

Because carvedilol is a unique vasodilating β blocker (BB) exerting antioxidant activity and pleiotropic effects, it was theorized that it may confer more potent beneficial effects on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) settings. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized, controlled, direct-comparison trials that included adults receiving atenolol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, nebivolol, or carvedilol to evaluate the effects of carvedilol compared to other BBs on mortality, cardiovascular events, and hospital readmissions in the setting of AMI or systolic HF. Compared to β(1)-selective BBs used in HF (8 trials, n = 4,563), carvedilol significantly reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.93, p = 0.0006). In 3 trials of patients with AMI (n = 644), carvedilol significantly reduced all-cause mortality by 45% (fixed-effects model: risk ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.94, p = 0.03, random-effects model: risk ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 1.12, p = 0.10), with no reduction in non-fatal MI (risk ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 1.22, p = 0.16). In conclusion, carvedilol, as compared against atenolol, bisoprolol, metoprolol and nebivolol in randomized direct comparison trials, significantly reduced all-cause mortality in systolic HF patients. Additionally, carvedilol significantly reduced all-cause mortality compared with β(1)-selective BBs in AMI patients using the fixed-effects model but not using the random-effects model.

Carvedilol: a third-generation β-blocker should be a first-choice β-blocker

β-Blockers are a standard of care in many clinical settings such as acute myocardial infarction, heart failure and patients at risk for a coronary event. However, not all β-blockers are the same and they vary in properties such as lipophilicity, metabolic profile, receptor inhibition, hemodynamics, tolerability and antioxidant/anti-inflammatory effects. It has been unclear whether these differences affect outcomes or if one β-blocker should be preferred over another. This review will summarize the properties of metoprolol, atenolol and carvedilol, as well as comparative experimental and clinical trials between these agents. We will provide compelling evidence of why carvedilol should be a first-line β-blocker and why it offers many advantages over the β1-selective β-blockers.

Carvedilol administration in acute myocardial infarction results in stronger inhibition of early markers of left ventricular remodeling than metoprolol

BACKGROUND

The structural secuelae of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is mostly dictated by left ventricular (LV) remodelling, leading to heart failure. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and their tissue inhibitors (TIMPs) play a critical role in LV remodelling. β-blockers are first line therapy for AMI and heart failure; however, the mechanisms responsible for their benefits remain poorly understood. Different β-blocker agents have been shown to exert beneficial activities both in AMI and heart failure, however, their role in early remodelling after ischemia/reperfusion is to be fully elucidated. We sought to compare the effect of 2 of the most prescribed β-blocker agents in early markers of LV remodelling after AMI.

METHODS

A reperfused AMI was induced in Yorshire pigs, being randomized to early intravenous carvedilol, metoprolol or placebo. Twenty-four hours after reperfusion markers of early remodelling were addressed in the LV.

RESULTS

The early administration of both β-blockers is able to significantly reduce macrophage infiltration as well as the expression and activity of MCP-1 and MMP-2 compared to placebo. The effects of carvedilol were much stronger than those of metoprolol. Conversely, carvedilol upregulated the expression TIMP-2 to a greater extent than metoprolol.

CONCLUSIONS

In an AMI model closely mimicking human pathophysiology, the early administration of carvedilol reduced the expression of markers associated with early LV remodelling to greater extent than metoprolol. These findings may explain the superior clinical benefits exerted by carvedilol in heart failure.

Impact of pretreatment with clopidogrel on initial patency and outcome in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The main goal of the initial treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is prompt reperfusion of the infarct-related artery. The value of pretreatment with clopidogrel before primary percutaneous coronary intervention is currently unclear.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Studies were retrieved through MEDLINE and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register searches over the past 20 years. Two authors independently performed the study selection and data extraction. Randomized controlled studies were included when the research subjects were unselected patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Pilot trials, studies that enrolled patients undergoing rescue percutaneous coronary intervention, and studies with angiographic assessment not performed by a core laboratory or 2 blinded investigators were excluded. Thirty-eight treatment groups, including 8429 patients, were included. Initial patency was higher in treatment groups in which patients received pretreatment with clopidogrel (34.3%; 95% confidence interval, 32.9 to 35.8) compared with those in which patients did not receive clopidogrel before initial coronary angiography (25.8%; 95% confidence interval, 24.5 to 27.1). In multivariate-weighted logistic regression analysis, pretreatment with clopidogrel was an independent predictor of early reperfusion (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.31 to 1.74; P<0.0001) and improved clinical outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial patency and clinical outcome were improved in treatment groups that received pretreatment with clopidogrel. These results in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are in line with the experience of pretreatment with clopidogrel in elective patients, non-ST-elevation coronary syndromes, and thrombolytic studies.

Relationship between therapeutic time intervals and intermediate term left ventricular systolic function in patients treated with facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The concept of initiating fibrinolytic therapy in patients who cannot undergo immediate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been proposed as a strategy to improve outcomes. However, evidence supporting the use of this strategy is not conclusive, and the results of recent randomized controlled trials are apparently contradictory. Probably, the time points of administration of the adjunctive thrombolytics and antiplatelet agents and the time loss until coronary intervention have a major influence on the discrepancy of outcomes in different trials. Therefore, the relationship between therapeutic time intervals and outcome in patients treated with facilitated PCI has been analyzed.

METHODS

In this single center retrospective study, 131 patients with STEMI were treated with a combined pharmaco-mechanical reperfusion strategy using half-dose r-tPA combined with a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa antagonist prior to PCI. Specific time points were recorded for each patient, including the time of symptom onset, the time of first medical contact, the start of intravenous thrombolysis, the time of administration of the GP IIb/IIIa antagonist and the start of coronary intervention. We then examined the relationship between the time delay from symptom onset to the initiation of various steps of treatment and the residual myocardial damage as expressed by the severity of both global and regional myocardial dysfunction calculated from a left ventriculography study performed 3 months later.

RESULTS

The median time from symptom onset to the first medical contact, with 25th and 75th percentiles in parentheses, was 1.25 h (0.75, 3), from symptom onset to initiation of thrombolytic therapy 2.25 h (1.25, 3), to initiation of GP IIb/ IIIa inhibitor therapy 3.5 h (2, 5.69), and to the start of coronary intervention 4.81 h (2.85, 7.91). The time between symptom onset and initiation of both thrombolytic therapy and coronary intervention was significantly related to the global ejection fraction and to the extent of regional hypokinesia at the 3-month follow-up (p<0.05). The time to the initiation of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors was only significantly related to the global ejection fraction (p<0.05), while the time to the first medical contact did not show a similar relationship (p>0.05). Furthermore, we observed a significant relationship between the infarct-related artery (IRA) patency at the initial angiogram and the residual regional myocardial damage at follow-up; normokinesia at follow-up was found in 61.3% of patients with an initially patent IRA and in 41.2% of patients with an initially occluded IRA, whereas severe hypokinesia was found in 13.8% and 37.3%, respectively (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In patients with STEMI treated with a facilitated PCI strategy using half dose r-tPA in combination with a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor blocker, the 3-month global and regional residual myocardial dysfunction is significantly related to the time elapsed between the onset of symptoms and the start of both fibrinolytic therapy and coronary intervention.

Genetics and heritability of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction

A positive family history is frequently reported by patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or myocardial infarction. For risk stratification, it is crucial to distinguish between accidental reoccurrence of sporadic cases and cases with a true heritable component of the conditions. A familial predisposition is assumed when a myocardial infarction is diagnosed by a male first degree relative before the 55th year of life or a female first degree relative before the 65th year of life. The current manuscript reviews major studies from which a familial risk of CAD or myocardial infarction can be inferred. Moreover, a brief overview summarizes the current results of molecular genetic research on chromosomal loci and genes relevant for CAD and myocardial infarction.

Present treatment of acute myocardial infarction in patients over 75 years--data from the Berlin Myocardial Infarction Registry (BHIR)

AIMS

Guidelines issued by European and German cardiology societies clearly define procedures for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). These guidelines, however, are based on clinical studies in which older patients are underrepresented. Older patients, on the other hand, represent a large and growing portion of the infarction population. It was our goal in the present paper to analyse the present treatment of AMI patients over 75 years of age in the city of Berlin, Germany, with data gained from the Berlin Myocardial Infarction Registry (BHIR).

METHODS

We prospectively collected data from 5079 patients (3311 men and 1768 women, mean age 65.6) with acute myocardial infarction who were treated in 25 hospitals in Berlin during the period 1999-2003. 1319 patients (25.9%) were older than 75 (mean age 82.5 years).

RESULTS

Overall hospital mortality rate was 11.6%. In patients over 75, this rate was 23.9%; among the younger infarction population, it was 7.3%. In contrast to the younger AMI patients, the majority of those over 75 were female (62.5 vs 25.1% for the younger) and demonstrated a significantly higher frequency of all prognostically meaningful comorbidities (heart failure 14.4% vs. 3.5%; renal failure 11.5 vs 3.9%; diabetes 37.3 vs 24.3%). Clinical signs of severe infarction, moreover, were more common among the aged patients (pulmonary congestion 45.4 vs 19.7%; left bundle branch block 12.7 vs 3.6%). Pre-hospital time was prolonged (2.8 vs 2 h) and guideline-recommended therapy was applied significantly less frequently to AMI patients over 75 (reperfusion therapy 39.8 vs 71.7%, beta-blockers 62.8 vs 78.3%, statins 26.5 vs 45.5%). Multivariate analysis revealed the following factors to be independent predictors of hospital mortality in patients over 75: age (OR 1.05 per year), acute heart failure (OR 2.39), pre-hospital resuscitation (OR 10.6), cardiogenic shock (OR 2.73), pre-hospital delay >12 h (OR 1.68), and ST elevation in the first ECG (OR 2.09). Independent predictors of a favourable hospital course were as follows: admission to a hospital >600 beds (OR 0.64), reperfusion therapy (OR 0.63), early betablocker treatment (OR 0.46), and early application of ACE inhibitors (OR 0.48).

CONCLUSION

Infarction patients over 75 have a very high hospital complication and mortality rate. They are typically treated with delay, and with less adherence to relevant guidelines than are younger patients. Reperfusion therapy, early administration of beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors, as well as admission to large medical centres are all factors that contribute to a favourable prognosis of high-aged AMI patients.