Effect of coronary thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention on one-year survival (from the FAST-MI 2010 registry)

Effect of Coronary Thrombus Aspiration in Non ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients on Three-Year Survival- Does it add any Benefit?

We assessed the effect of thrombus aspiration (TA) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on in-hospital and 3-year mortality in consecutive non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (n = 189) and unstable angina pectoris (n = 148) patients (n = 337) between 2011 and 2016. In total, 153 patients (45.4%) underwent TA. The number of patients with postoperative thrombolysis in terms of myocardial infarction grade 3 blood flow (P < .001) and myocardial blush grade 3 (P < .001) were significantly higher in all TA groups. At 6-, 12- and 24-month post-PCI, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly higher in the all TA groups versus the stand alone PCI group (P < .001). Thrombus aspiration was associated with a significant improvement both in epicardial flow, myocardial perfusion and left ventricular ejection fraction. Thrombus aspiration during PCI in all acute coronary syndrome (except ST segment elevation) patients was associated with better survival compared with stand alone PCI group at 3-year follow-up (P = .019).

Short-term safety and long-term benefits of stent postdilation after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Results of a cohort study

AIM

Achieving the optimal apposition of coronary stents during percutaneous coronary intervention is not always feasible. The risks and benefits of stent postdilation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have remained controversial. We sought to evaluate the immediate angiographic and long-term outcomes in patients with and without stent postdilation.

METHODS

A cohort of patients (n = 1,224) with STEMI, treated with PPCI (n = 500 postdilated; n = 724 controls), were studied. The flow grade, the myocardial blush grade, and the frame count were considered angiographic outcomes. The clinical outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-comprising cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and repeat revascularization-and the device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-consisting of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel revascularization.

RESULTS

The flow and myocardial blush grades were not different between the two groups, and the frame count was significantly lower in the postdilation group (15.7 ± 8.4 vs. 17 ± 10.4; p < .05). The patients were followed up for 348 ± 399 days. DOCE (2.2% vs. 5.8%) and cardiac mortality (1.2% vs. 3.2%) were lower in the postdilation group. In the fully adjusted propensity score-matched analysis, postdilation was associated with decreased DOCE (HR = 0.40 [0.18-0.87], p = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

Selective postdilation improved some angiographic and clinical outcomes and could not be discouraged in PPCI on patients with STEMI.

The pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction and strategies of protection beyond reperfusion: a continual challenge

The incidence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has decreased over the last two decades in developed countries, but mortality from STEMI despite widespread access to reperfusion therapy is still substantial as is the development of heart failure, particularly among an expanding older population. In developing countries, the incidence of STEMI is increasing and interventional reperfusion is often not available. We here review the pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction and reperfusion, notably the temporal and spatial evolution of ischaemic and reperfusion injury, the different modes of cell death, and the resulting coronary microvascular dysfunction. We then go on to briefly characterize the cardioprotective phenomena of ischaemic preconditioning, ischaemic postconditioning, and remote ischaemic conditioning and their underlying signal transduction pathways. We discuss in detail the attempts to translate conditioning strategies and drug therapy into the clinical setting. Most attempts have failed so far to reduce infarct size and improve clinical outcomes in STEMI patients, and we discuss potential reasons for such failure. Currently, it appears that remote ischaemic conditioning and a few drugs (atrial natriuretic peptide, exenatide, metoprolol, and esmolol) reduce infarct size, but studies with clinical outcome as primary endpoint are still underway.

Effect of Adjunctive Thrombus Aspiration on In-Hospital and 3-Year Outcomes in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Large Native Coronary Artery Thrombus Burden

Although the long-term clinical benefit of adjunctive thrombus aspiration (TA) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) remains controversial, the impact of TA in patients with large thrombus has not been evaluated. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of adjunctive TA during PPCI on clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and a large thrombus. We assessed the effect of adjunctive TA on in-hospital and 3-year clinical outcomes in 627 patients with STEMI and a large thrombus in the native coronary artery. The cumulative 3-year incidence of all-cause death was not significantly different between the 2 groups (91.5% vs 89.0%, log-rank test p = 0.347). After adjusting for confounders, the risk of all-cause death in the TA group was not significantly lower than that in the non-TA group (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 3.54, p = 0.674). The adjusted risks of target lesion revascularization, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were also not significantly different between the 2 groups. In conclusion, adjunctive TA during PPCI was not associated with better in-hospital and 3-year all-cause deaths in patients with STEMI and a large coronary artery thrombus.

Cyclosporine before PCI in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Experimental and clinical evidence suggests that cyclosporine may attenuate reperfusion injury and reduce myocardial infarct size. We aimed to test whether cyclosporine would improve clinical outcomes and prevent adverse left ventricular remodeling.

METHODS

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned 970 patients with an acute anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 12 hours after symptom onset and who had complete occlusion of the culprit coronary artery to receive a bolus injection of cyclosporine (administered intravenously at a dose of 2.5 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo before coronary recanalization. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, worsening of heart failure during the initial hospitalization, rehospitalization for heart failure, or adverse left ventricular remodeling at 1 year. Adverse left ventricular remodeling was defined as an increase of 15% or more in the left ventricular end-diastolic volume.

RESULTS

A total of 395 patients in the cyclosporine group and 396 in the placebo group received the assigned study drug and had data that could be evaluated for the primary outcome at 1 year. The rate of the primary outcome was 59.0% in the cyclosporine group and 58.1% in the control group (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.39; P=0.77). Cyclosporine did not reduce the incidence of the separate clinical components of the primary outcome or other events, including recurrent infarction, unstable angina, and stroke. No significant difference in the safety profile was observed between the two treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with anterior STEMI who had been referred for primary PCI, intravenous cyclosporine did not result in better clinical outcomes than those with placebo and did not prevent adverse left ventricular remodeling at 1 year. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health and NeuroVive Pharmaceutical; CIRCUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01502774; EudraCT number, 2009-013713-99.).