Search

Background: Left ventricular systolic deterioration (LVSD) develops in some patients despite successful percutaneous intervention and medical therapy for myocardial infarction (MI). We sought to determine predictors of LVSD by comparing demographic, procedural, angiographic variables, and 6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with and without LVSD after MI., Methods: We performed a posthoc analysis of patients prospectively enrolled in the Stent-PAMI trial if they had successful percutaneous intervention for MI (<50% residual stenosis and TIMI-3 grade flow), normal left ventricular systolic function on index ventriculogram, and protocol driven coronary angiography with ventriculography at 6 months. We defined LVSD as an absolute decrease in ejection fraction > or =15% compared to baseline value., Results: Of the 900 patients enrolled in Stent-PAMI, 187 patients met the inclusion criteria. LVSD developed in 30 patients (16%) and occurred independent of demographic, procedural, angiographic variables, and 6-month MACE. Multivariate predictors of LVSD were higher baseline ejection fraction (P = 0.0065, OR 1.09; 95% CI = 1.02-1.16) and peak creatine phosphokinase (CPK) level (P = 0.0022, OR 1.04; 95% CI = 1.02-1.07)., Conclusions: LVSD occurs in a minority of patients despite successful mechanical reperfusion and occurred independent of procedural, angiographic variables, target vessel revascularization, reinfarction, and combined MACE. Infarct size (determined by peak CPK) and high baseline ejection fraction predicted development of LVSD at 6 months. LVSD in this population likely occurred by negative left ventricular remodeling.

Although there has been enthusiasm for using embolic protection devices in acute myocardial infarction, it is unclear how often these devices can be used in nonselected patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate potential eligibility for use of either proximal or distal embolic protection during primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in a consecutive, nonselected population. We analyzed the angiograms of 259 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to determine eligibility for use of either type of protection device. Overall, 202 (78%) patients had anatomy suitable for embolic protection, including 154 (59%) who were eligible for proximal protection, 128 (49%) who were eligible for distal protection, and 80 (31%) who were eligible for both devices. Patients eligible for proximal protection were more likely to have a right coronary culprit, whereas patients eligible for distal protection were more likely to have a lesion in the left anterior descending coronary artery.

The safety and efficacy of treating recently stented patients on combination antiplatelet therapy with warfarin for clinical indications in unknown. Therefore, we examined the use of warfarin in a population of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with coronary stenting. We performed a retrospective analysis comparing patients who underwent successful coronary stenting for acute MI and were discharged on either warfarin and combination platelet therapy for clinical indications or combination antiplatelet therapy alone. There was a nonsignificant trend toward reinfarction at 6 and 12 months in warfarin-treated patients. Warfarin-treated patients had significantly higher rates of transfusion compared to nonwarfarin-treated patients at 12 months (21% vs 0%, P=0.028). There were no significant predictors of reinfarction in 6 and 12 months in multivariate analysis. These data demonstrate that warfarin anticoagulation, in combination with successful coronary stenting for acute MI and antiplatelet therapy, does not reduce risk of reinfarction but is associated with increased rates of transfusion.