T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med 369;23 nejm.org december 5, 2013

Background: Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support devices are increasingly used in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS), despite limited evidence for their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with use of the Impella device compared with intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and medical treatment in patients with AMI-CS. Methods: Data of patients with AMI-CS treated with the Impella device at European tertiary care hospitals were collected retrospectively. All patients underwent early revascularization and received optimal medical treatment. Using IABP-SHOCK II (Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II) trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, 372 patients were identified and included in this analysis. These patients were matched to 600 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. The following baseline criteria were used as matching parameters: age, sex, mechanical ventilation, ejection fraction, prior cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and lactate. Primary end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Results: In total, 237 patients treated with an Impella could be matched to 237 patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial. Baseline parameters were similarly distributed after matching. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality (48.5% versus 46.4%, P =0.64). Severe or life-threatening bleeding (8.5% versus 3.0%, P <0.01) and peripheral vascular complications (9.8% versus 3.8%, P =0.01) occurred significantly more often in the Impella group. Limiting the analysis to IABP-treated patients as a control group did not change the results. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis of patients with AMI-CS, the use of an Impella device was not associated with lower 30-day mortality compared with matched patients from the IABP-SHOCK II trial treated with an IABP or medical therapy. To further evaluate this, a large randomized trial is warranted to determine the effect of the Impella device on outcome in patients with AMI-CS. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03313687.

Aims To determine the effect of the glucagon‐like peptide‐1 analogue liraglutide on left ventricular function in chronic heart failure patients with and without type 2 diabetes. Methods and results LIVE was an investigator‐initiated, randomised, double‐blinded, placebo‐controlled multicentre trial. Patients (n = 241) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤45%) were recruited (February 2012 to August 2015). Patients were clinically stable and on optimal heart failure treatment. Intervention was liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily or matching placebo for 24 weeks. The LVEF was similar at baseline in the liraglutide and the placebo group (33.7 ± 7.6% vs. 35.4 ± 9.4%). Change in LVEF did not differ between the liraglutide and the placebo group; mean difference (95% confidence interval) was −0.8% (−2.1, 0.5; P = 0.24). Heart rate increased with liraglutide [mean difference: 7 b.p.m. (5, 9), P < 0.0001]. Serious cardiac events were seen in 12 (10%) patients treated with liraglutide compared with 3 (3%) patients in the placebo group (P = 0.04). Conclusion Liraglutide did not affect left ventricular systolic function compared with placebo in stable chronic heart failure patients with and without diabetes. Treatment with liraglutide was associated with an increase in heart rate and more serious cardiac adverse events, and this raises some concern with respect to the use of liraglutide in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left ventricular function. More data on the safety of liraglutide in different subgroups of heart failure patients are needed.

No abstract