Background-The effect of β-blockers on infarct size when used in conjunction with primary percutaneous coronary intervention is unknown. We hypothesize that metoprolol reduces infarct size when administered early (intravenously before reperfusion). Methods and Results-Patients with Killip class II or less anterior ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within 6 hours of symptoms onset were randomized to receive intravenous metoprolol (n=131) or not (control, n=139) before reperfusion. All patients without contraindications received oral metoprolol within 24 hours. The predefined primary end point was infarct size on magnetic resonance imaging performed 5 to 7 days after STEMI. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in 220 patients (81%). Mean±SD infarct size by magnetic resonance imaging was smaller after intravenous metoprolol compared with control (25.6±15.3 versus 32.0±22.2 g; adjusted difference, −6.52; 95% confidence interval, −11.39 to −1.78; P=0.012). In patients with pre-percutaneous coronary intervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade 0 to 1 flow, the adjusted treatment difference in infarct size was −8.13 (95% confidence interval, −13.10 to −3.16; P=0.0024). Infarct size estimated by peak and area under the curve creatine kinase release was measured in all study populations and was significantly reduced by intravenous metoprolol. Left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in the intravenous metoprolol group (adjusted difference, 2.67%; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-5.21; P=0.045). The composite of death, malignant ventricular arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, atrioventricular block, and reinfarction at 24 hours in the intravenous metoprolol and control groups was 7.1% and 12.3%, respectively (P=0.21). Conclusions-In patients with anterior Killip class II or less ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, early intravenous metoprolol before reperfusion reduced infarct size and increased left ventricular ejection fraction with no excess of adverse events during the first 24 hours after STEMI.
BackgroundSimulation is an essential tool in modern medical education. The object of this study was to assess, in cost-effective measures, the introduction of new generation simulators in an adult life support (ALS) education program.MethodsTwo hundred fifty primary care physicians and nurses were admitted to ten ALS courses (25 students per course). Students were distributed at random in two groups (125 each). Group A candidates were trained and tested with standard ALS manikins and Group B ones with new generation emergency and life support integrated simulator systems.ResultsIn group A, 98 (78%) candidates passed the course, compared with 110 (88%) in group B (p < 0.01). The total cost of conventional courses was €7689 per course and the cost of the advanced simulator courses was €29034 per course (p < 0.001). Cost per passed student was €392 in group A and €1320 in group B (p < 0.001).ConclusionAlthough ALS advanced simulator systems may slightly increase the rate of students who pass the course, the cost-effectiveness of ALS courses with standard manikins is clearly superior.
CorrespondenceWe appreciate the interest of and comments by Drs Argulian and Messerli on our recently published study.1 Defining inclusion and exclusion criteria, along with dose selection of the administered pharmacological therapy, is critical in the early stages of a clinical trial design. The scientific method strongly recommends performing a profound bibliographic research in this regard, and for this purpose, we carefully reviewed previously conducted trials on the use of β-blockers in the setting of ST-segment-elevation acute myocardial infarction, taking note of the strengths and weaknesses of each of them.Thus, for the Effect of Metoprolol in Cardioprotection During an Acute Myocardial Infarction (METOCARD-CNIC) trial, we randomized anterior myocardial infarctions revascularized by primary angioplasty in <6 hours from symptom onset because this is the population that most benefits from any cardioprotective intervention. More important, and for safety reasons, we designed a trial to recruit patients with no obvious contraindications for the administration of intravenous metoprolol. Because β-blockers are clearly contraindicated in the acute phase of severe heart failure, patients in Killip-Kimball classes III and IV were strictly excluded from randomization, 2 fulfilling the primum non nocere principle. Patients randomized to intravenous metoprolol received up to three 5-mg boluses of metoprolol tartrate 2 minutes apart, following the same scheme as that in the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) II-B trial, 3 closely checking for the presence of contraindications-heart rhythm and rate, PR-interval duration, blood pressure, and clinical examination-before the administration of every single bolus. Similarly, the dose and timing for oral metoprolol after reperfusion were selected according to current recommendations. 4 Thus, an initial low dose of 25 mg metoprolol twice a day was initiated in the vast majority of the patients included in the trial within the first 24 hours of admission and was carefully titrated according to clinical judgment.The increase in mortality observed in patients with initial systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg or Killip-Kimball class III in the Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial (COMMIT) trial 5 is one of the main reasons why clinical practice guidelines do not emphasize early intravenous β-blocker initiation in ST-segmentelevation myocardial infarction. These patients were systematically excluded from our trial; consequently, prereperfusion administration of intravenous metoprolol did not increase the incidence of major adverse cardiac events in our study. This reinforces the contraindications for intravenous β-blocker therapy in patients with overt heart failure but supports its use in the population that can potentially benefit most from this inexpensive, safe, and effective intervention.Although there are other important differences between the METOCARD-CNIC trial and previously conducted studies evaluating the effect of β-blockers in the settin...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.