Relation of plasma neuropeptide-Y with myocardial function and infarct severity in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction is associated with the release of the co-transmitter neuropeptide-Y (NPY). NPY acts as a potent vasoconstrictor and is associated with microvascular dysfunction after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study comprehensively evaluated the association of plasma NPY with myocardial function and infarct severity, visualized by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, in STEMI patients revascularized by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

In this observational study, we included 260 STEMI patients enrolled in the prospective MARINA-STEMI (NCT04113356) study. Plasma NPY concentrations were measured by an immunoassay 24h after PCI from peripheral venous blood samples. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), global longitudinal strain (GLS), infarct size (IS) and microvascular obstruction (MVO) were determined using CMR imaging.

RESULTS

Median plasma concentrations of NPY were 70 [interquartile range (IQR):35-115] pg/ml. NPY levels above median were significantly associated with lower LVEF (48%vs.52%, p=0.004), decreased GLS (-8.8%vs.-12.6%, p<0.001) and larger IS (17%vs.13%, p=0.041) in the acute phase after infarction as well as after 4 months (LVEF:50%vs.52%, p=0.030, GLS:-10.5vs.-12.9,p<0.001,IS:13%vs.10%,p=0.011). In addition, NPY levels were significantly related to presence of MVO (58%vs.52%, p=0.041). Moreover, in multivariable linear regression analysis, NPY remained significantly associated with all investigated CMR parameters (LVEF:p<0.001,GLS:p<0.001,IS:p=0.003,MVO:p=0.042) independent of other established clinical variables including high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T, pre-interventional TIMI flow 0 and left anterior descending artery as culprit lesion location.

CONCLUSION

High plasma levels of NPY, measured 24h after STEMI, were independently associated with lower LVEF, decreased GLS, larger IS as well as presence of MVO, indicating plasma NPY as a novel clinical risk marker post STEMI.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Computed Tomography to Guide Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized, Open-Label, Noninferiority Trial

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) is recommended for guiding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, a sizable proportion of TAVR candidates have chronic kidney disease, in whom the use of iodinated contrast media is a limitation. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is a promising alternative, but randomized data comparing the effectiveness of CMR-guided versus CT-guided TAVR are lacking.

METHODS

An investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial was conducted at 2 Austrian heart centers. Patients evaluated for TAVR according to the inclusion criteria (severe symptomatic aortic stenosis) and exclusion criteria (contraindication to CMR, CT, or TAVR, a life expectancy <1 year, or chronic kidney disease level 4 or 5) were randomized (1:1) to undergo CMR or CT guiding. The primary outcome was defined according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definition of implantation success at discharge, including absence of procedural mortality, correct positioning of a single prosthetic valve, and proper prosthetic valve performance. Noninferiority was assessed using a hybrid modified intention-to-treat/per-protocol approach on the basis of an absolute risk difference margin of 9%.

RESULTS

Between September 11, 2017, and December 16, 2022, 380 candidates for TAVR were randomized to CMR-guided (191 patients) or CT-guided (189 patients) TAVR planning. Of these, 138 patients (72.3%) in the CMR-guided group and 129 patients (68.3%) in the CT-guided group eventually underwent TAVR (modified intention-to-treat cohort). Of these 267, 19 patients had protocol deviations, resulting in a per-protocol cohort of 248 patients (121 CMR-guided, 127 CT-guided). In the modified intention-to-treat cohort, implantation success was achieved in 129 patients (93.5%) in the CMR group and in 117 patients (90.7%) in the CT group (between-group difference, 2.8% [90% CI, -2.7% to 8.2%]; P<0.01 for noninferiority). In the per-protocol cohort (n=248), the between-group difference was 2.0% (90% CI, -3.8% to 7.8%; P<0.01 for noninferiority).

CONCLUSIONS

CMR-guided TAVR was noninferior to CT-guided TAVR in terms of device implantation success. CMR can therefore be considered as an alternative for TAVR planning.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT03831087.