Andrew R. Thornley

Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing anti-embolic devices with standard PCI for improving myocardial reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Failure to achieve adequate myocardial reperfusion often occurs during PCI in patients with STEMI. This is in part due to atheromatous and thrombotic distal embolization. Several anti‐embolic devices have been developed to protect against distal embolization during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) to improve myocardial reperfusion and enhance event free survival. Evidence from current studies has not shown a consistent benefit, but anti‐embolic devices continue to be used.

Secondary prevention following coronary artery bypass grafting has improved but remains sub-optimal: the need for targeted follow-up

A focused review of secondary preventive medication following revascularisation provides an opportunity to ensure optimal use of these agents. A retrospective analysis of our in-house cardiothoracic surgical database was performed to identify patients undergoing non-emergency, elective surgical revascularisation discharged on four secondary preventive medications: aspirin; beta-blockers; ACE-inhibitors and statins. Of 2749 patients studied, 2302 underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), mean age 65.5 years (S.D. 9.15). Overall, 2536 (92%) patients were prescribed aspirin. Beta-blockers were prescribed in 2171 (79%) patients overall, in 1096/1360 (81%) of patients with a history of myocardial infarction and in 465/619 (75%) of patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Overall, 1518 (55%) patients were prescribed an ACE-inhibitor and 179 (6.5%) an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB); one of these agents was prescribed in 446/619 (72%) patients with LVSD and 915/1360 (67%) patients with a history of previous myocardial infarction. Overall, 2518 (92%) patients were prescribed a statin. Secondary preventive therapies are prescribed more commonly on discharge after CABG than in previous studies, but there is a continuing under-utilisation of ACE-inhibitors. To maximise the potential benefits of these agents, further study is required to understand why they are not prescribed.

The 7-year teesside experience of primary prevention ICD indications following primary PCI (PPCI) and the potential impact of a change in NICE guidance.

Introduction The recovery of LV function in patients with severe LV impairment in the acute phase following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is not well established. The indication for a primary prevention ICD post-STEMI is dependent on which screening guidance, NICE or ESC, is followed. The potential impact of the new NICE guidance is estimated. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients presenting with a STEMI over a 7-year period (2005–2012) treated with PPCI to determine in-hospital mortality, LV function at index presentation, at 3 months and the predicted primary prevention ICD implantation rate using NICE (TA095) and ESC 2006 guidelines. Predicted implant rates using the new NICE guidance (TA314) and actual implantation rates were also assessed. Results 3902 patients with a mean age of 65±13 years underwent PPCI. Of those patients surviving until discharge, 332 (10%) had LVEF ≤35%. 254 of 332 patients (76%) with a severely impaired ventricle were followed up at participating centres. 210 of 254 (83%) patients had a repeat echocardiogram within 3 months post-MI; among these patients, 89 (42%) remained to have LVEF ≤35%. The number of patients fulfilling NICE and ESC criteria for primary prevention ICD implantation was 14 (16%) and 84 (94%), respectively. The actual number of patients receiving an ICD was 17 (19%). The number of patients fulfilling the new NICE (TA314) guidance was 84 (94%). Conclusions A small proportion of patients with STEMIs undergoing PPCI have a severely impaired LV systolic function. A large proportion of these patients will have improved LV systolic function at 3 months. There is a five-fold difference in the predicted ICD implantation rates depending on which guidance is followed—NICE versus ESC. The potential impact of the new NICE (TA314) guidance on ICD implantation will be a significant increase in ICD implantation rates.