Abstract Background Mortality in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. Early risk stratification is crucial to make adequate treatment decisions. Objectives This study sought to develop an ...easy-to-use, readily available risk prediction score for short-term mortality in patients with CS, derived from the IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock) trial. Methods The score was developed using a stepwise multivariable regression analysis. Results Six variables emerged as independent predictors for 30-day mortality and were used as score parameters: age >73 years, prior stroke, glucose at admission >10.6 mmol/l (191 mg/dl), creatinine at admission >132.6 μmol/l (1.5 mg/dl), Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3 after percutaneous coronary intervention, and arterial blood lactate at admission >5 mmol/l. Either 1 or 2 points were attributed to each variable, leading to a score in 3 risk categories: low (0 to 2), intermediate (3 or 4), and high (5 to 9). The observed 30-day mortality rates were 23.8%, 49.2%, and 76.6%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Validation in the IABP-SHOCK II registry population showed good discrimination with an area under the curve of 0.79. External validation in the CardShock trial population (n = 137) showed short-term mortality rates of 28.0% (score 0 to 2), 42.9% (score 3 to 4), and 77.3% (score 5 to 9; p < 0.001) and an area under the curve of 0.73. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a stepwise increase in mortality between the different score categories (0 to 2 vs. 3 to 4: p = 0.04; 0 to 2 vs. 5 to 9: p = 0.008). Conclusions The IABP-SHOCK II risk score can be easily calculated in daily clinical practice and strongly correlated with mortality in patients with infarct-related CS. It may help stratify patient risk for short-term mortality and might, thus, facilitate clinical decision making. (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II IABP-SHOCK II; NCT00491036 )
Summary Background Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction has traditionally been supported by unfractionated heparin, which has never been directly ...compared with a new anticoagulant using consistent anticoagulation and similar antiplatelet strategies in both groups. We compared traditional heparin treatment with intravenous enoxaparin in primary PCI. Methods In a randomised open-label trial, patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an intravenous bolus of 0·5 mg/kg of enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin before primary PCI. Wherever possible, medical teams travelling in mobile intensive care units (ambulances) selected, randomly assigned (using an interactive voice response system at the central randomisation centre), and treated patients. Patients who had received any anticoagulant before randomisation were excluded. Patients and caregivers were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was 30-day incidence of death, complication of myocardial infarction, procedure failure, or major bleeding. The main secondary endpoint was the composite of death, recurrent acute coronary syndrome, or urgent revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00718471. Findings 910 patients were assigned to treatment with enoxaparin (n=450) or unfractionated heparin (n=460). The primary endpoint occurred in 126 (28%) patients after anticoagulation with enoxaparin versus 155 (34%) patients on unfractionated heparin (relative risk RR 0·83, 95% CI 0·68–1·01, p=0·06). The incidence of death (enoxaparin, 17 4% vs heparin, 29 6% patients; p=0·08), complication of myocardial infarction (20 4% vs 29 6%; p=0·21), procedure failure (100 26% vs 109 28%; p=0·61), and major bleeding (20 5% vs 22 5%; p=0·79) did not differ between groups. Enoxaparin resulted in a significantly reduced rate of the main secondary endpoint (30 7% vs 52 11% patients; RR 0·59, 95% CI 0·38–0·91, p=0·015). Death, complication of myocardial infarction, or major bleeding (46 10% vs 69 15% patients; p=0·03), death or complication of myocardial infarction (35 8% vs 57 12%; p=0·02), and death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularisation (23 5% vs 39 8%; p=0·04) were all reduced with enoxaparin. Interpretation Intravenous enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin significantly reduced clinical ischaemic outcomes without differences in bleeding and procedural success. Therefore, enoxaparin provided an improvement in net clinical benefit in patients undergoing primary PCI. Funding Direction de la Recherche Clinique, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris; Sanofi-Aventis.
Background In acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), up to 80% of patients present with multivessel coronary artery disease. Currently, the best revascularization strategy ...is unknown. Therefore, a prospective randomized adequately powered clinical trial is warranted. Study design The CULPRIT-SHOCK study is a 706-patient controlled, international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. It is designed to compare culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with possible staged non-culprit lesion revascularization versus immediate multivessel PCI in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two treatment arms. The primary efficacy endpoint of CULPRIT-SHOCK is 30-day mortality and severe renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcome measures such as hemodynamic, laboratory, and clinical parameters will serve as surrogate endpoints for prognosis. Furthermore, an intermediate- and long-term follow-up at 6 and 12 months will be performed. Safety endpoints include the assessment of bleeding and stroke. Conclusions The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial will address the question of optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS.
Patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs) are considered a relative contraindication to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). One of the main reasons is the presumed risk for residual ...aortic regurgitation (AR). However, case reports and small case series have suggested that TAVI can be successfully performed with acceptable clinical outcomes in high-risk patients with BAV. Within the large German TAVI Registry, we sought to evaluate TAVI in older high-risk patients with BAV. From January 2009 to June 2010, a total of 1,424 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI were prospectively enrolled into the German TAVI Registry. For the present analysis, patients with valve-in-valve procedures were excluded and those with BAV (n = 38, 3%) were compared with those with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV; n = 1357, 97%). Patient characteristics did not markedly differ and procedural success was very high in both groups. There was a higher rate of relevant AR (≥II) after TAVI among patients with BAV (25 vs 15%, p = 0.05), whereas pacemakers were more often implanted in patients with TAV (17% vs 35%, p = 0.02). Thirty-day mortality rate was similar in both cohorts (11% vs 11%). In a Cox proportional regression analysis, BAV was not associated with higher 1-year mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 1.41). In selected patients with BAV, TAVI can be performed with a satisfactory clinical result. Although the risk for relevant AR seems to be greater among patients with BAV, 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were not elevated compared with patients with TAV.
Background In current guidelines, intraaortic balloon pumping (IABP) is considered a class 1 indication in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is mainly ...based on retrospective or prospective registries with a lack of randomized clinical trials. Therefore, IABP is currently only used in 20% to 40% of cardiogenic shock cases. The hypothesis of this trial is that IABP in addition to early revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting will improve clinical outcome of patients in cardiogenic shock. Study Design The IABP-SHOCK II study is a 600-patient, prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled trial. The study is designed to compare the efficacy and safety of IABP versus optimal medical therapy on the background of early revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to 1 of the 2 treatments. The primary efficacy end point of IABP-SHOCK II is 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome measures, such as hemodynamic, laboratory, and clinical parameters, will serve as surrogate end points for prognosis. Furthermore, an intermediate and long-term follow-up at 6 and 12 months will be performed. Safety will be assessed, by the GUSTO bleeding definition, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke. Conclusions The IABP-SHOCK II trial addresses important questions regarding the efficacy and safety of IABP in addition to early revascularization in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction.
Abstract Background Bioabsorbable cardiac matrix (BCM) is a novel device that attenuates adverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling after large myocardial infarctions in experimental models. Objectives ...This study aimed to analyze whether BCM, compared with saline control, would result in less LV dilation and fewer adverse clinical events between baseline and 6 months. Methods In an international, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, 303 subjects with large areas of infarction despite successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were randomized 2:1 to BCM or saline injected into the infarct-related artery 2 to 5 days after primary PCI. The primary outcome was mean change from baseline in LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, 6-minute walk time, and New York Heart Association functional class at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, target-vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, significant arrhythmia requiring therapy, or myocardial rupture through 6 months. Results In total, 201 subjects were assigned to BCM and 102 to saline control. There was no significant difference in change in LVEDVI from baseline to 6 months between the groups (mean change ± SD: BCM 14.1 ± 28.9 ml/m2 vs. saline 11.7 ± 26.9 ml/m2 ; p = 0.49). There was also no significant difference in the secondary endpoints. The rates of the primary safety outcome were similar between the 2 groups (BCM 11.6% vs. saline 9.1%; p = 0.37). Conclusions Intracoronary deployment of BCM 2 to 5 days after successful reperfusion in subjects with large myocardial infarction did not reduce adverse LV remodeling or cardiac clinical events at 6 months. (IK-5001 for the Prevention of Remodeling of the Ventricle and Congestive Heart Failure After Acute Myocardial Infarction PRESERVATION I; NCT01226563 )
The value of multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and multivessel disease (MVD) is still unclear because randomized controlled trials are ...missing. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the impact of MV-PCI on in-hospital outcomes of patients with MVD presenting with CS: 336 patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS and ≥70% stenoses in ≥2 major epicardial vessels were included in this analysis of the Euro Heart Survey PCI registry. Patients undergoing MV-PCI (n = 82, 24%) were compared to those with single-vessel PCI (n = 254, 76%). The rate of 3-vessel disease (60% vs 57%, p = 0.63) was similar in the 2 cohorts. Presentation with resuscitation (48 vs 46%, p = 0.76) and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (83 vs 87%, p = 0.31) was frequent in patients with MV-PCI and single-vessel PCI. Patients with ventilation were more likely to receive MV-PCI (30% vs 19%, p = 0.05). There was a tendency toward a higher hospital mortality in patients with MV-PCI (48.8% vs 37.4%, p = 0.07). After adjustment for confounding variables, no significant difference for in-hospital mortality (odd ratio OR 1.28, 95% confidence interval CI 0.72 to 2.28) could be observed between the 2 groups. Age (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.77), 3-vessel disease (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.04 to 3.03), ventilation (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.59 to 5.68), and previous resuscitation (OR 2.55, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.39) were independent predictors of hospital death. In conclusion, MV-PCI is currently used in only 1/4 of patients with CS and MVD. An additional nonculprit PCI was not associated with a survival benefit in these high risk patients.
Postinfarction left ventricular (LV) remodeling can result in chronic heart failure and functional impairment. Although pharmacological strategies for established heart failure can be beneficial, ...preventing remodeling remains a challenge. Injectable bioabsorbable alginate or “bioabsorbable cardiac matrix” (BCM), composed of an aqueous mixture of sodium alginate and calcium gluconate, is a sterile colorless liquid that is a polysaccharide polymer produced from brown seaweed. When exposed to excess ionized calcium present in infarcted myocardium, BCM assembles to form a flexible gel, structurally resembling extracellular matrix, which provides temporary structural support to the infarct zone through and beyond the time needed for mature fibrotic tissue to develop. The PRESERVATION I trial is an early phase randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing intracoronary application of 4 mL of BCM with saline control in patients who develop large infarctions after successful reperfusion of large ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Subjects will be randomized 2:1 to either BCM or saline control and will have the study device deployed through an intracoronary microcatheter in the infarct-related artery 2 to 5 days after index ST-segment elevation MI treated with successful primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary effectiveness end point is the absolute change in LV diastolic volume index as measured by 3-dimensional echocardiography from baseline to 6 months after BCM deployment. Secondary effectiveness end points include clinical outcomes, patient-reported quality of life, additional echocardiographic measures, and functional status measures. In summary, the PRESERVATION I trial is a randomized double-blind trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of the novel device BCM in preventing LV remodeling patients who have large MIs despite undergoing successful primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention.
Intravenous enoxaparin did not reduce significantly the primary end point (p = 0.06) compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the randomized Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated with primary ...angioplasty and intravenous enoxaparin Or unfractionated heparin to Lower ischemic and bleeding events at short- and Long-term follow-up (ATOLL) trial. We present the results of the prespecified per-protocol analysis excluding patients who did not receive the treatment allocated by randomization or received both enoxaparin and UFH. We evaluated all-cause mortality, complication of myocardial infarction, procedural failure, or major bleeding (primary end point) and all-cause mortality, recurrent acute coronary syndrome, or urgent revascularization (main secondary end point). Baseline and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment groups. Of 910 randomized patients, 795 patients (87.4%) were treated according to the protocol with consistent anticoagulation using intravenous enoxaparin (n = 400) or UFH (n = 395). Enoxaparin reduced significantly the rates of the primary end point (relative risk RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval CI 0.62 to 0.94, p = 0.012) and the main secondary end point (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.63, p <0.0001). There was less major bleeding with enoxaparin (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.01, p = 0.050) contributing to the significant improvement of the net clinical benefit (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.74, p = 0.0002). All-cause mortality was also reduced with enoxaparin (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.74, p = 0.003). In conclusion, in the per-protocol analysis of the ATOLL trial, pertinent to >87% of the study population, enoxaparin was superior to UFH in reducing ischemic end points and mortality.
PDF
