Search

Coronary plaque rupture mediating acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with a systemic inflammatory response. Whether early temporal changes in inflammatory biomarkers are associated with angiographic and electrocardiographic markers of reperfusion and subsequent clinical outcomes is unclear. In the APEX-AMI biomarker substudy, 376 patients with STEMI had inflammatory biomarkers measured at the time of hospital presentation and 24 h later. The primary outcome was the 90-day composite of death, shock, or heart failure. Secondary reperfusion outcomes were (1) worst least residual ST segment elevation (ST-E: <1 mm, 1 to <2 mm, ≥2 mm) and (2) post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) TIMI flow grade (0/1/2 vs 3) and TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG 0/1 vs 2/3). The 90-day incidence of death, shock or heart failure was 21.3 % in this cohort. Electrocardiographic reperfusion (worst residual ST-E <1 mm, 1 to <2 mm, ≥2 mm) was associated with differences in 24 h change in N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (1192.8, 1332.5, 1859.0 ng/mL; p = 0.043) and the pro-inflammatory cytokines Interleukin (IL)-6 (14.0, 13.6, 22.1 pg/mL; p = 0.016), IL-12 (−0.5, −0.9, −0.1 pg/mL; p = 0.013), and tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) (1.0, 0.6, 3.6 pg/mL; p = 0.023). Angiographic reperfusion (TMPG 0/1 vs 2/3) was associated with changes in median NT-proBNP (2649.3, 1382.7 ng/mL; p = 0.002) and IL-6 (28.7, 15.1; p = 0.040). After adjustment for baseline covariates, the 24 h change in the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNFα [hazard ratio (HR) 0.49; 95 % CI 0.26-0.95; p = 0.035] and the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL 10 (HR 1.41; 95 % CI 1.06-1.87; p = 0.018) were independently associated with the primary composite outcome. Successful coronary reperfusion was associated with less systemic inflammatory response and greater temporal inflammatory changes were independently associated with higher 90-day composite of death, shock, or heart failure. These findings provide support for an association between success of reperfusion, an acute STEMI inflammatory response and subsequent clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adjudication by an adjudication committee in clinical trials plays an important role in the assessment of outcomes. Controversy exists regarding the utility of adjudication committee versus site-based assessments and their relationship to subsequent clinical events. Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of the Providing Rapid Out of Hospital Acute Cardiovascular Treatment-3 trial, which randomized patients with chest pain or shortness of breath for biomarker testing in the ambulance. The emergency department physician diagnosis at the time of emergency department disposition was compared with an adjudicated diagnosis assigned by an adjudication committee. The level of agreement between emergency department and adjudication committee diagnosis was evaluated using kappa coefficient and compared to clinical outcomes (30-day re-hospitalization, 30-day and 1-year mortality). Results: Of the 477 patients, 49.3% were male with a median age of 70 years; hospital admission rate was 31.2%. The emergency department physicians and the adjudication committee disagreed in 55 cases (11.5%) with a kappa of 0.71 (95% confidence interval: 0.64, 0.78). The 30-day re-hospitalization, 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality were 22%, 1.9%, and 9.4%, respectively. Although there were similar rates of re-hospitalization irrespective of adjudication, in cases of disagreement compared to agreement between adjudication committee and emergency department diagnosis, there was a higher 30-day (7.3% vs 1.2%, p = 0.002) and 1-year mortality (27.3% vs 7.1%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Despite substantial agreement between the diagnosis of emergency department physicians and adjudication committee, in the subgroup of patients where there was disagreement, there was significantly worse short-term and long-term mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The STREAM study randomly assigned ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients to receive a pharmacoinvasive versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention reperfusion strategy. We assessed whether there was an association between outcomes based on randomisation at a community hospital versus a prehospital location., Methods/results: Community hospital patients (358/1866 (19.2%)) were compared to prehospital patients and their outcomes categorised into pharmacoinvasive according to their treatment assignment. Compared to prehospital patients, community hospital patients had more diabetes (17.8% vs. 11.5%, P=0.001), higher Killip Class >1 (9.4% vs. 5.0%, P=0.002) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk scores ⩾5 (18.2% vs. 12.4%, P=0.005). The 30-day primary endpoint (death, shock, congestive heart failure and re-infarction) for community hospital patients was 14.9% versus 13.2% for prehospital patients ( P=0.403). Community hospital pharmacoinvasive patients tended to receive less rescue (35.1% vs. 42.8%, P=0.062); when deployed their rescue was delayed 43 minutes. Community hospital patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention experienced a delay of 31 minutes versus prehospital patients. Pharmacoinvasive patients receiving scheduled angiography from a community hospital and prehospital patients had comparable times to angiography (17.7 vs. 18.7 hours) and low event rates (6.2% vs. 8.0%). Although the interaction between randomisation location and treatment received on the primary endpoint was not significant ( P interaction =0.065) those pharmacoinvasive patients requiring rescue from community hospitals had worse outcomes than prehospital rescue patients (odds ratio 2.28, 95% confidence interval 1.16-4.49)., Conclusion: Within STREAM, STEMI patients randomly assigned at community hospitals had a higher baseline risk but similar outcomes compared to those studied prehospital patients irrespective of successful pharmacoinvasive therapy or primary percutaneous coronary intervention. However, worse outcomes in the pharmacoinvasive patients requiring rescue in community hospitals emphasises their need for immediate transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospital.

Background: We evaluated the prespecified endpoint, aborted myocardial infarction (AbMI), according to the use of a pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 1754 patients randomised within 3 h of symptom onset in the STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial infarction (STREAM) trial., Methods: Based on sequential ECG's and biomarkers, AbMI was defined as ST-elevation resolution ≥50% (90 min posttenecteplase (TNK) in the PI arm or 30 min postprimary PCI) with minimal biomarker rise., Results: In the PI arm 11.1% (n=99) had AbMI versus 6.9% (n=59) in primary PCI arm (p<0.01). In a multivariable model, AbMI patients overall had less baseline ΣST-deviation, fewer baseline Q-waves and shorter total ischaemic times. PI AbMI patients had faster time to TNK (90 vs 100 min, p=0.015): total ischaemic time was 100 min longer in primary PCI AbMI patients and no difference in ischaemic time existed between AbMI and non-AbMI patients within this group. Although no significant interaction between treatment and AbMI on the composite endpoint of death/shock/congestive heart failure/recurrent MI occurred (p=0.292), PI AbMI patients had a lower incidence in this endpoint than non-AbMI patients (5.1 vs 12%, p=0.038); this was not evident in primary PCI patients. Forty-five patients (ie, 2.5%) had masquerading MI with minimal biomarker elevation and no evolution in baseline ST-elevation., Conclusions: A PI strategy of early fibrinolysis more frequently aborts MI than primary PCI. Such PI patients had more favourable outcomes as compared with non-AbMIs. Diligent review of ECG evolution in STEMI distinguishes AbMI from infarct masquerade. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00623623., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Baseline Q waves may provide additional value compared with time from the onset of symptoms in predicting outcomes for patients with ST-segment elevation. We evaluated whether baseline Q waves superseded time from symptom onset as a prognostic marker of one-year mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Our study was derived from data from patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention within 24 hours in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes trial, Methods: Q waves on the baseline electrocardiogram were evaluated by a blinded core laboratory. We assessed the associations between baseline Q waves and time from symptom onset to percutaneous coronary intervention with peak biomarkers, ST-segment resolution on the discharge electrocardiogram, and one-year all-cause and vascular mortality., Results: Of 4341 patients with ST-segment elevation, 46% had baseline Q waves. Compared to those without Q waves, those with baseline Q waves were older, more frequently male, had higher heart rates, more advanced Killip class and had a longer time between the onset of symptoms and percutaneous coronary intervention. They also had higher one-year all-cause mortality than patients without baseline Q waves (baseline Q waves: 4.9%; no baseline Q waves: 2.8%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-2.45, p < 0.001). Complete ST-segment resolution was greatest and all-cause mortality lowest among those with symptom onset three hours or less before percutaneous coronary intervention and no baseline Q waves. After multivariable adjustment, baseline Q waves, but not time from symptom onset, were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10-2.01, p = 0.046) and vascular mortality (adjusted HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.09-2.28, p = 0.02)., Interpretation: The presence of baseline Q waves provides useful additional prognostic insight into the clinical outcome of patients with ST-segment elevation. Clinical Trials.gov registration no. NCT00391872.