BackgroundChronic inflammation promotes atherosclerosis in cardiovascular disease and is a major prognostic factor for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is involved in the progress of atherosclerosis and plaque destabilization and plays a pivotal role in the development of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Little is known to date about the clinical impact of MIF in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods and ResultsIn a pilot study, 286 patients with symptomatic CAD (n = 119 ACS, n = 167 stable CAD) undergoing PCI were consecutively evaluated. 25 healthy volunteers served as control. Expression of MIF was consecutively measured in patients at the time of PCI. Baseline levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), “regulated upon activation, normal T-cell expressed, and secreted” (RANTES) and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) were measured by Bio-Plex Cytokine assay. C-reactive protein (CRP) was determined by Immunoassay. Patients with ACS showed higher plasma levels of MIF compared to patients with stable CAD and control subjects (median 2.85 ng/mL, interquartile range (IQR) 3.52 versus median 1.22 ng/mL, IQR 2.99, versus median 0.1, IQR 0.09, p<0.001). Increased MIF levels were associated with CRP and IL-6 levels and correlated with troponin I (TnI) release (spearman rank coefficient: 0.31, p<0.001). Patients with ACS due to plaque rupture showed significantly higher plasma levels of MIF than patients with flow limiting stenotic lesions (p = 0.002).ConclusionTo our knowledge this is the first study, demonstrating enhanced expression of MIF in ACS. It is associated with established inflammatory markers, correlates with the extent of cardiac necrosis marker release after PCI and is significantly increased in ACS patients with “culprit” lesions. Further attempts should be undertaken to characterize the role of MIF for risk assessment in the setting of ACS.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectivesThis study was designed to identify the multivariate effect of clinical risk factors on high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and 12 months major adverse events (MACE) under treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel in patients undergoing non-urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Methods739 consecutive patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing PCI were recruited. On-treatment platelet aggregation was tested by light transmittance aggregometry. Clinical risk factors and MACE during one-year follow-up were recorded. An independent population of 591 patients served as validation cohort.ResultsDegree of on-treatment platelet aggregation was influenced by different clinical risk factors. In multivariate regression analysis older age, diabetes mellitus, elevated BMI, renal function and left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of HPR. After weighing these variables according to their estimates in multivariate regression model, we developed a score to predict HPR in stable CAD patients undergoing elective PCI (PREDICT-STABLE Score, ranging 0-9). Patients with a high score were significantly more likely to develop MACE within one year of follow-up, 3.4% (score 0-3), 6.3% (score 4-6) and 10.3% (score 7-9); odds ratio 3.23, P=0.02 for score 7-9 vs. 0-3. This association was confirmed in the validation cohort.ConclusionsVariability of on-treatment platelet function and associated outcome is mainly influenced by clinical risk variables. Identification of high risk patients (e.g. with high PREDICT-STABLE score) might help to identify risk groups that benefit from more intensified antiplatelet regimen. Additional clinical risk factor assessment rather than isolated platelet function-guided approaches should be investigated in future to evaluate personalized antiplatelet therapy in stable CAD-patients.

IMPORTANCEAlthough endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in acute ischemic stroke is recommended by guidelines to improve functional recovery, thus far there are insufficient data on its association with mortality.OBJECTIVE To identify guideline-relevant trials of EVT vs medical therapy reporting 90-day mortality and perform a meta-analysis.DATA SOURCES All randomized clinical trials cited for recommendations on EVT vs medical therapy in the latest 2018 American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guidelines.STUDY SELECTION Ten American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guideline-relevant randomized clinical trials of EVT vs medical therapy were selected for inclusion. Two EVT trials were excluded owing to infrequent use of EVT.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were abstracted by 2 independent investigators and double-checked by 4 others. Singular study data were integrated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and a random-effects model to compute summary statistics of risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Risk of 90-day mortality and 90-day intracranial hemorrhage was analyzed; sensitivity analyses were performed in early-window EVT trials (which included patients from the onset of symptoms onward) vs late-window EVT trials (which included patients from 6 hours after onset of symptoms onward). RESULTSIn 10 trials with 2313 patients, EVT significantly reduced the risk for 90-day mortality by 3.7% compared with medical therapy (15.0% vs 18.7%; RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .03). Trends were similar in early-window (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.01; P = .06) and late-window trials only (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.41-1.40; P = .38). There was no difference in the risk for intracranial hemorrhage in EVT vs medical therapy (4.2% vs 4.0%; RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.71-1.72; P = .65). Limitations of the studies include trial protocol heterogeneity and bias originating from prematurely terminated trials.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This meta-analysis of all evidence on EVT cited in the 2018 American Stroke Association/American Heart Association guidelines shows significant benefits for survival during the first 90 days after acute ischemic stroke compared with medical therapy alone.

Our meta-analysis of all available randomized evidence shows a survival benefit of ICD therapy for primary prevention in DCM. DANISH results suggest an attenuation of this ICD advantage when compared to contemporary medical and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Until larger trials have confirmed this finding, ICD therapy should remain the recommendation for primary prevention of SCD in DCM.

ObjectivesBempedoic acid (BA) is a novel oral low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering drug. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess efficacy and safety for clinical outcomes in high cardiovascular (CV) risk patients.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial Results and the American College of Cardiology web site were searched.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BA versus placebo in high CV risk patients reporting clinical outcomes were included.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, CV mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). Safety outcomes included new onset or worsening of diabetes mellitus (DM), muscular disorders, gout and worsening of renal function.ResultsSix RCTs with a total of 3956 patients and follow-ups of four to 52 weeks were identified. Heterogeneity mainly derived from differing follow-up duration and baseline CV risk. No difference in MACE (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15), all-cause mortality (OR 2.37; CI 0.80 to 6.99) and CV mortality (OR 1.66; CI 0.45 to 6.04) for BA versus placebo was observed. BA showed beneficial trends for non-fatal MI (OR 0.57; CI 0.32 to 1.00) and was associated with a lower risk of new-onset or worsening of DM (OR 0.68; CI 0.49 to 0.94), but higher risk of gout (OR 3.29; CI 1.28 to 8.46) and a trend for muscular disorders (OR 2.60; CI 1.15 to 5.91) and worsening of renal function (OR 4.24; CI 0.98 to 18.39).ConclusionBA in high CV risk patients showed no significant effects on major CV outcomes in short-term follow-up. Unfavourable effects on muscular disorders, renal function and gout sound a note of caution. Hence, further studies with longer term follow-up in carefully selected populations are needed to clarify the risk/benefit ratio of this novel therapy.