Search

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend culprit artery-only revascularization (CULPRIT) based on safety concerns during noninfarct-related artery intervention. However, the data to support this safety concern are scant. Searches were performed in PubMed/EMBASE/CENTRAL for studies evaluating multivessel revascularization versus CULPRIT in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD). A multivessel revascularization strategy had to be performed at the time of CULPRIT or during the same hospitalization. Early (≤30-day) and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Among 19 studies (23 arms) that evaluated 61,764 subjects with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization was performed in a minority of patients (16%). For early outcomes, there was no significant difference for outcomes of mortality, MI, stroke, and target vessel revascularization, with a 44% decrease in risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.81) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. Similarly, for long-term outcomes (follow-up 2.0 ± 1.1 years), there was no difference for outcomes of MI, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis, with 33%, 43%, and 53% decreases in risk of mortality, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively, and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.72) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. In conclusion, in patients with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization appears to be safe compared to culprit artery-only revascularization. These findings support the need for a large-scale randomized trial to evaluate revascularization strategies in patients with STEMI and MVD. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the optimal method of reperfusion when performed expeditiously. Factors contributing to delays in PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have not been thoroughly characterized or quantified. We sought to identify the factors associated with the delays to reperfusion in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Primary PCI was performed in 3,340 patients with STEMI in the international, multicenter Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction trial. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of delay in achieving reperfusion from 38 baseline and procedural variables. A total of 905 patients (27.1%) presented to non-PCI hospitals and were subsequently transferred; the remainder presented to PCI hospitals. The most powerful independent predictor of the interval from symptom onset to arrival at the PCI hospital and the first door-to-balloon time was an initial presentation at a non-PCI hospital (median incremental 58- and 54-minute delay, respectively, both p <0.001). Other independent predictors of prolonged door-to-balloon times included presentation with respiratory failure (42-minute incremental delay, p = 0.003), presentation during off-work hours (11-minute incremental delay, p <0.001), and co-morbid conditions such as diabetes and heart failure. In conclusion, among patients undergoing primary PCI, presentation to a non-PCI hospital was the variable associated with the greatest delay to reperfusion. Systems of care that encourage ambulance diagnosis and direct delivery of patients with STEMI to a PCI hospital might shorten the overall door-to-balloon times and improve the clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although pharmacologic therapy has made impressive advances in the past decade and is the mainstay of therapy for heart failure (HF), there is still a large unmet need, because morbidity and mortality remain unacceptably high. Implanted medical devices are gaining increasing utility in this group of patients and have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of HF. The majority of devices in clinical use or under active investigation in HF can be grouped into 1 of 4 categories: devices to monitor the HF condition, devices to treat rhythm disturbances, devices to improve the mechanical efficiency of the heart, and devices to replace part or all of the heart’s function. There are several devices either approved or under development to monitor the HF condition, ranging from interactive weight scales to implantable continuous pressure monitors. The challenge is to demonstrate that this technology can improve patient outcomes. Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are used to treat heart rhythms in a broad range of patients with heart disease, but they now have a special place in HF management with the prophylactic use of ICDs in patients who have advanced systolic dysfunction. The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II study demonstrated a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality with ICDs in patients with a history of a myocardial infarction and a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <0.30. LV and multisite pacing are means of improving the mechanical efficiency of the heart. The concept is to create a more coordinated contraction of the ventricles to overcome the inefficiency associated with conduction system delays, which are common in HF. The acute hemodynamic effect can be impressive and is immediate. Several studies of intermediate duration (3 to 6 months) have consistently demonstrated that biventricular pacing improves symptoms and exercise capacity. Mechanical methods of remodeling the heart into a more efficient shape have been under scrutiny for several years. New methods of restraining the heart with prosthetic material are under investigation in humans, with encouraging pilot results. Heart replacement has been evaluated clinically with LV assist devices for several decades. The Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance Therapy as an Alternative in Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) study has demonstrated a proof of concept for the use of mechanical blood pumps to improve survival, functional capacity, and symptoms. Several assist devices with such features as total implantability, improved durability, and smaller size are now under study; these may further improve the outcomes of patients. One year ago, the world witnessed the first clinical use of a totally implantable total artificial heart. Although the long-term outcomes were limited, the device demonstrated an impressive ability to improve organ function and extend survival in the population facing imminent death. Further development in this field is expected. The use of devices in HF now has a strong foothold, and the potential exists for substantially greater use of a broad range of devices in the near future. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]