Impact of prodromal angina pectoris and white blood cell count on outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Safety and feasibility of high-dose administration of nicorandil before reperfusion therapy in acute myocardial infarction

The efficacy and safety of high-dose nicorandil therapy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have not yet been clarified. This is a prospective study including 30 patients who received nicorandil at 0.06 mg/kg/h [standard dose nicorandil (SDN) group] and 32 patients who received a bolus injection of nicorandil 0.2 mg/kg followed by a continuous infusion at 0.2 mg/kg/h [high-dose nicorandil (HDN) group]. The benefits and adverse events were assessed during acute phase and 12-month follow-up period. There were no significant differences between the groups in blood pressure, heart rate or urine volume 2, 6 and 24 h after drug administration, although blood pressure decreased during acute phase. The percentages of patients who required dose reduction or discontinuation of nicorandil were 34.4 and 16.7 % in HDN and SDN groups, respectively (p = 0.11). In HDN group, subgroup analysis revealed that the TIMI frame count (TFC) was significantly lower in patients in whom the treatment was started within 12 h compared to those more than 12 h (17.0 vs. 21.0, p = 0.017) and in patients with baseline WBC elevation compared to those without it (16.5 vs. 22.0, p = 0.029). A TFC of >20 was significantly associated with being in HDN group [odds ratio (OR) 0.27; 95 % confidence interval, CI 0.07-0.89], onset-to-balloon time (OR 1.06; 95 % CI 1.01-1.16), and ∑creatine kinase (OR 7.27; 95 % CI 1.40-57.83). There were no significant differences in incidences of cardiovascular death, rehospitalization, and target lesion revascularization between the groups. HDN therapy may improve coronary microcirculation in patients with AMI.

Early identification and delay to treatment in myocardial infarction and stroke: differences and similarities

Background

The two major complications of atherosclerosis are acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute ischemic stroke. Both are life-threatening conditions characterised by the abrupt cessation of blood flow to respective organs, resulting in an infarction. Depending on the extent of the infarction, loss of organ function varies considerably.

In both conditions, it is possible to limit the extent of infarction with early intervention. In both conditions, minutes count.

This article aims to describe differences and similarities with regard to the way patients, bystanders and health care providers act in the acute phase of the two diseases with the emphasis on the pre-hospital phase.

Method

A literature search was performed on the PubMed, Embase (Ovid SP) and Cochrane Library databases.

Results

In both conditions, symptoms vary considerably. Patients appear to suspect AMI more frequently than stroke and, in the former, there is a gender gap (men suspect AMI more frequently than women).

With regard to detection of AMI and stroke at dispatch centre and in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) there is room for improvement in both conditions. The use of EMS appears to be higher in stroke but the overall delay to hospital admission is shorter in AMI. In both conditions, the fast track concept has been shown to influence the delay to treatment considerably.

In terms of diagnostic evaluation by the EMS, more supported instruments are available in AMI than in stroke. Knowledge of the importance of early treatment has been reported to influence delays in both AMI and stroke.

Conclusion

Both in AMI and stroke minutes count and therefore the fast track concept has been introduced. Time to treatment still appears to be longer in stroke than in AMI. In the future improvement in the early detection as well as further shortening to start of treatment will be in focus in both conditions. A collaboration between cardiologists and neurologists and also between pre-hospital and in-hospital care might be fruitful.