Uwe Zeymer

Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND In current international guidelines, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials. METHODS In this randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients). All patients were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery) and to receive the best available medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Safety assessments included major bleeding, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke. RESULTS A total of 300 patients in the IABP group and 298 in the control group were included in the analysis of the primary end point. At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary end points or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function. The IABP group and the control group did not differ significantly with respect to the rates of major bleeding (3.3% and 4.4%, respectively; P=0.51), peripheral ischemic complications (4.3% and 3.4%, P=0.53), sepsis (15.7% and 20.5%, P=0.15), and stroke (0.7% and 1.7%, P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS The use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned. (Funded by the German Research Foundation and others; IABP-SHOCK II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00491036.).

Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction in Europe: description of the current situation in 30 countries

Aims Patient access to reperfusion therapy and the use of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI) or thrombolysis (TL) varies considerably between European countries. The aim of this study was to obtain a realistic contemporary picture of how patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are treated in different European countries. Methods and results The chairpersons of the national working groups/societies of interventional cardiology in European countries and selected experts known to be involved in the national registries joined the writing group upon invitation. Data were collected about the country and any existing national STEMI or PCI registries, about STEMI epidemiology, and treatment in each given country and about PCI and p-PCI centres and procedures in each country. Results from the national and/or regional registries in 30 countries were included in this analysis. The annual incidence of hospital admission for any acute myocardial infarction (AMI) varied between 90–312/100 thousand/year, the incidence of STEMI alone ranging from 44 to 142. Primary PCI was the dominant reperfusion strategy in 16 countries and TL in 8 countries. The use of a p-PCI strategy varied between 5 and 92% (of all STEMI patients) and the use of TL between 0 and 55%. Any reperfusion treatment (p-PCI or TL) was used in 37–93% of STEMI patients. Significantly less reperfusion therapy was used in those countries where TL was the dominant strategy. The number of p-PCI procedures per million per year varied among countries between 20 and 970. The mean population served by a single p-PCI centre varied between 0.3 and 7.4 million inhabitants. In those countries offering p-PCI services to the majority of their STEMI patients, this population varied between 0.3 and 1.1 million per centre. In-hospital mortality of all consecutive STEMI patients varied between 4.2 and 13.5%, for patients treated by TL between 3.5 and 14% and for patients treated by p-PCI between 2.7 and 8%. The time reported from symptom onset to the first medical contact (FMC) varied between 60 and 210 min, FMC-needle time for TL between 30 and 110 min, and FMC-balloon time for p-PCI between 60 and 177 min. Conclusion Most North, West, and Central European countries used p-PCI for the majority of their STEMI patients. The lack of organized p-PCI networks was associated with fewer patients overall receiving some form of reperfusion therapy.

2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial

BACKGROUND In current international guidelines the recommendation for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use has been downgraded in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction on the basis of registry data. In the largest randomised trial (IABP-SHOCK II), IABP support did not reduce 30 day mortality compared with control. However, previous trials in cardiogenic shock showed a mortality benefit only at extended follow-up. The present analysis therefore reports 6 and 12 month results. METHODS The IABP-SHOCK II trial was a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who were undergoing early revascularisation and optimum medical therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to IABP versus control via a central web-based system. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality, but 6 and 12 month follow-up was done in addition to quality-of-life assessment for all survivors with the Euroqol-5D questionnaire. A masked central committee adjudicated clinical outcomes. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036. FINDINGS Between June 16, 2009, and March 3, 2012, 600 patients were assigned to IABP (n=301) or control (n=299). Of 595 patients completing 12 month follow-up, 155 (52%) of 299 patients in the IABP group and 152 (51%) of 296 patients in the control group had died (relative risk [RR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·86-1·18, p=0·91). There were no significant differences in reinfarction (RR 2·60, 95% CI 0·95-7·10, p=0·05), recurrent revascularisation (0·91, 0·58-1·41, p=0·77), or stroke (1·50, 0·25-8·84, p=1·00). For survivors, quality-of-life measures including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression did not differ significantly between study groups. INTERPRETATION In patients undergoing early revascularisation for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, IABP did not reduce 12 month all-cause mortality. FUNDING German Research Foundation; German Heart Research Foundation; German Cardiac Society; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte; University of Leipzig--Heart Centre; Maquet Cardiopulmonary; Teleflex Medical.

Management of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary or valve interventions: a joint consensus document of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis, European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and European Association of Acute Cardiac Care (ACCA) endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) and Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS)

Atrial fibrillation (AF) confers a substantial risk of mortality and morbidity from stroke and thrombo-embolism, and this common cardiac arrhythmia represents a major healthcare burden in Europe.1 Stroke prevention is central to the management of AF patients, with the 2012 focused update of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines2 recommending oral anticoagulation (OAC) using well-controlled adjusted dose vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, e.g. warfarin) or non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs, previously referred to as new or novel OACs3) for patients with AF and ≥1 stroke risk factor(s). Also, these guidelines strongly advocate a clinical practice shift so that the initial decision step now is the identification of ‘truly low risk’ patients, essentially those aged <65 years without any stroke risk factor (both male and female), who do not need any antithrombotic therapy.2 The ESC guidelines also recommend the use of the CHA2DS2-VASc score4 for stroke risk assessment, and define ‘low-risk’ patients as those with a CHA2DS2-VASc score = 0 (males) or score = 1 (females). Subsequent to this initial step of identifying the low-risk patients, effective stroke prevention (which is essentially OAC) can then be offered to AF patients with ≥1 stroke risk factor(s), with treatment decisions made in consultation with patients and incorporating their preferences. In everyday clinical practice, over 80% of all patients with AF have an indication for OAC, and vascular disease co-exists in ∼30% of them.5–7 With an estimated prevalence of AF of 1–2% and ∼20% of these requiring percutaneous cardiovascular interventions over time,8 ∼1–2 million AF patients in Europe who are …

Bivalirudin started during emergency transport for primary PCI

BACKGROUND Bivalirudin, as compared with heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, has been shown to reduce rates of bleeding and death in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether these benefits persist in contemporary practice characterized by prehospital initiation of treatment, optional use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and novel P2Y12 inhibitors, and radial-artery PCI access use is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 2218 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who were being transported for primary PCI to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (control group). The primary outcome at 30 days was a composite of death or major bleeding not associated with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), and the principal secondary outcome was a composite of death, reinfarction, or non-CABG major bleeding. RESULTS Bivalirudin, as compared with the control intervention, reduced the risk of the primary outcome (5.1% vs. 8.5%; relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.82; P=0.001) and the principal secondary outcome (6.6% vs. 9.2%; relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.96; P=0.02). Bivalirudin also reduced the risk of major bleeding (2.6% vs. 6.0%; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.66; P<0.001). The risk of acute stent thrombosis was higher with bivalirudin (1.1% vs. 0.2%; relative risk, 6.11; 95% CI, 1.37 to 27.24; P=0.007). There was no significant difference in rates of death (2.9% vs. 3.1%) or reinfarction (1.7% vs. 0.9%). Results were consistent across subgroups of patients. CONCLUSIONS Bivalirudin, started during transport for primary PCI, improved 30-day clinical outcomes with a reduction in major bleeding but with an increase in acute stent thrombosis. (Funded by the Medicines Company; EUROMAX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01087723.).

The Na+/H+exchange inhibitor eniporide as an adjunct to early reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction: Results of the evaluation of the safety and cardioprotective effects of eniporide in acute myocardial infarction (ESCAMI) trial

OBJECTIVES We conducted an international, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial in patients undergoing thrombolytic therapy or primary angioplasty for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) to investigate the effect of eniporide on infarct size and clinical outcome. BACKGROUND Experimental studies suggest that the activity of the Na(+)/H(+) exchange (NHE) plays an important role in the unfavorable sequels of myocardial ischemia and reperfusion. Eniporide specifically inhibits the NHE-1 isoform and has been shown to limit infarct size in experimental models. METHODS The primary efficacy end point was the infarct size measured by the cumulative release of alpha-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase (alpha-HDBH) (area under the curve [AUC] 0 to 72 h). In stage 1, 50, 100, 150 or 200 mg eniporide given as a 10-min infusion before start of reperfusion therapy were compared with placebo in 430 patients, and in stage 2, 100 and 150 mg eniporide were compared with placebo in 959 patients. RESULTS In stage 1, the administration of 100 mg and 150 mg eniporide resulted in smaller infarct sizes (mean alpha-HBDH AUC in U/ml x h, placebo: 44.2, 100 mg eniporide: 40.2, 150 mg eniporide: 33.9), especially in the angioplasty group. In contrast, in stage 2 there was no difference in the enzymatic infarct size between the three groups (placebo: 41.2, 100 mg eniporide: 43.0, 150 mg eniporide: 41.5). Overall there was no effect of eniporide on clinical outcome (death, cardiogenic shock, heart failure, life-threatening arrhythmias). However, there was a significant reduction of the incidence of heart failure in patients reperfused late (>4 h). CONCLUSIONS In this large study administration of the NHE-1 inhibitor eniporide, before reperfusion therapy in patients with acute ST elevation MI, did not limit infarct size or improve clinical outcome.

β-Blocker use and clinical outcomes in stable outpatients with and without coronary artery disease.

CONTEXT β-Blockers remain the standard of care after a myocardial infarction (MI). However, the benefit of β-blocker use in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI, those with a remote history of MI, and those with only risk factors for CAD is unclear. OBJECTIVE To assess the association of β-blocker use with cardiovascular events in stable patients with a prior history of MI, in those with CAD but no history of MI, and in those with only risk factors for CAD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Longitudinal, observational study of patients in the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry who were divided into 3 cohorts: known prior MI (n = 14,043), known CAD without MI (n = 12,012), or those with CAD risk factors only (n = 18,653). Propensity score matching was used for the primary analyses. The last follow-up data collection was April 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. The secondary outcome was the primary outcome plus hospitalization for atherothrombotic events or a revascularization procedure. RESULTS Among the 44,708 patients, 21,860 were included in the propensity score-matched analysis. With a median follow-up of 44 months (interquartile range, 35-45 months), event rates were not significantly different in patients with β-blocker use compared with those without β-blocker use for any of the outcomes tested, even in the prior MI cohort (489 [16.93%] vs 532 [18.60%], respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .14). In the CAD without MI cohort, the associated event rates were not significantly different in those with β-blocker use for the primary outcome (391 [12.94%]) vs without β-blocker use (405 [13.55%]) (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.79-1.08]; P = .31), with higher rates for the secondary outcome (1101 [30.59%] vs 1002 [27.84%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]; P = .01) and for the tertiary outcome of hospitalization (870 [24.17%] vs 773 [21.48%]; OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.04-1.30]; P = .01). In the cohort with CAD risk factors only, the event rates were higher for the primary outcome with β-blocker use (467 [14.22%]) vs without β-blocker use (403 [12.11%]) (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.36]; P = .02), for the secondary outcome (870 [22.01%] vs 797 [20.17%]; OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.24]; P = .04) but not for the tertiary outcomes of MI (89 [2.82%] vs 68 [2.00%]; HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.97-1.90]; P = .08) and stroke (210 [6.55%] vs 168 [5.12%]; HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.99-1.52]; P = .06). However, in those with recent MI (≤1 year), β-blocker use was associated with a lower incidence of the secondary outcome (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64-0.92]). CONCLUSION In this observational study of patients with either CAD risk factors only, known prior MI, or known CAD without MI, the use of β-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events.

Bleeding in acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary interventions: position paper by the Working Group on Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology.

Bleeding has recently emerged as an important outcome in the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), which is relatively frequent compared with ischaemic outcomes and has important implications in terms of prognosis, outcomes, and costs. In particular, there is evidence that patients experiencing major bleeding in the acute phase are at higher risk for death in the following months, although the causal nature of this relation is still debated. This position paper aims to summarize current knowledge regarding the epidemiology of bleeding in ACS and percutaneous coronary intervention, including measurement and definitions of bleeding, with emphasis on the recent consensus Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definitions. It also provides an European perspective on management strategies to minimize the rate, extent, and consequences of bleeding. Finally, the research implications of bleeding (measuring and reporting bleeding in trials, the importance of bleeding as an outcome measure, and bleeding as a subject for future research) are also discussed.

Intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the international randomised open-label ATOLL trial

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.