Background —Dual therapy with ticlopidine and aspirin has been shown to be as effective as or more effective than conventional anticoagulation in patients with an optimal result after implantation of intracoronary metallic stents. However, the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy alone in an unselected population has not been evaluated. Methods —Patients were randomized to conventional anticoagulation or to treatment with antiplatelet therapy alone. Indications for stenting were classified as elective (decided before the procedure) or unplanned (to salvage failed angioplasty or to optimize the results of balloon angioplasty). After stenting, patients received aspirin and either ticlopidine or conventional anticoagulation (heparin or oral anticoagulant). The primary end point was the occurrence of bleeding or peripheral vascular complications; secondary end points were cardiac events (death, infarction, or stent occlusion) and duration of hospitalization. Results —In 13 centers, 236 patients were randomized to anticoagulation and 249 to antiplatelet therapy. Stenting was elective in 58% of patients and unplanned in 42%. Stent implantation was successfully achieved in 99% of patients. A primary end point occurred in 33 patients (13.5%) in the antiplatelet group and 48 patients (21%) in the anticoagulation group (odds ratio=0.6 [95% CI 0.36 to 0.98], P =0.03). Major cardiac-related events in electively stented patients were less common (odds ratio=0.23 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.91], P =0.01) in the antiplatelet group (3 of 123, 2.4%) than the anticoagulation group (11 of 111, 9.9%). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the antiplatelet group (4.3±3.6 versus 6.4±3.7 days, P =0.0001). Conclusions —Antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting significantly reduced rates of bleeding and subacute stent occlusion compared with conventional anticoagulation.

For patients with AMI complicated by CS, ERV resulted in improved 1-year survival. We recommend rapid transfer of patients with AMI complicated by CS, particularly those younger than 75 years, to medical centers capable of providing early angiography and revascularization procedures.

AimsTo determine whether risk stratification tests can predict serious arrhythmic events after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 0.40).Methods and resultsA total of 5869 consecutive patients were screened in 10 European centres, and 312 patients (age 65 ± 11 years) with a mean LVEF of 31 ± 6% were included in the study. Heart rate variability/turbulence, ambient arrhythmias, signal-averaged electrocardiogram (SAECG), T-wave alternans, and programmed electrical stimulation (PES) were performed 6 weeks after AMI. The primary endpoint was ECG-documented ventricular fibrillation or symptomatic sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). To document these arrhythmic events, the patients received an implantable ECG loop-recorder. There were 25 primary endpoints (8.0%) during the follow-up of 2 years. The strongest predictors of primary endpoint were measures of heart rate variability, e.g. hazard ratio (HR) for reduced very-low frequency component (<5.7 ln ms2) adjusted for clinical variables was 7.0 (95% CI: 2.4–20.3, P < 0.001). Induction of sustained monomorphic VT during PES (adjusted HR = 4.8, 95% CI, 1.7–13.4, P = 0.003) also predicted the primary endpoint.ConclusionFatal or near-fatal arrhythmias can be predicted by many risk stratification methods, especially by heart rate variability, in patients with reduced LVEF after AMI.

Despite the younger age, lower rate of anterior MI, and higher prevalence of single-vessel coronary disease of RV compared with LV shock patients, and their similar benefit from revascularization, mortality is unexpectedly high in patients with predominant RV shock and similar to patients with LV shock.