This study indicated that the presence of left ventricular aneurysm, incomplete revascularization, higher SYNTAX score and D-dimer level were the independent predictors of LVT formation in post-MI and LV dysfunction patients, which related to worse clinical outcomes. Future studies for early intervention and complete revascularization in high-risk subgroup patients are expected.
Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been the standard reperfusion strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the contemporary era. Meanwhile, the incidence and prognosis of left ventricular aneurysm (LVA) in AMI patients remain ambiguous. The aim of the current study is to identify the predictor and long-term prognosis of LVA in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 942 consecutive patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction who were treated by primary PCI. The baseline characteristics, procedural features, and one-year clinical outcomes were compared between the patients with and without LVA. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel revascularization, and ischemic stroke. Multiple logistic regression was applied to predict LVA formation and the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to evaluate the accuracy of the multivariate analysis model. Results: The general incidence of LVA was 15.92%. At one-year clinical follow-up, patients in the LVA group had significantly higher incidence of MACCEs (15.33% vs. 6.44%, P<0.01), mainly driven by an increased incidence of cardiac death (8.00% vs. 2.78%, P<0.01), target vessel revascularization (5.33% vs.2.27%, P=0.03), and ischemic stroke (4.00% vs. 1.39%, P=0.03). Multivariate analysis found that longer symptom-to-balloon time (S2B) [
Background
Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor has become the standard of care to reduce thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The role of routine platelet function testing (PFT) in patients treated with DAPT after PCI remains controversial and evidence of PFT‐guided antiplatelet therapy for patients with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI is limited.
Methods
We analyzed 1,353 consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. PFT was performed 72 hr postprocedure using a vasodilator‐stimulated phosphoprotein assay. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardio‐cerebral events (MACCEs) was defined as a composite of all‐cause death, cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and ischemic stroke. Patients with high platelet reactivity (HPR) were randomized to receive an intensified antiplatelet strategy by switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor (HPR switch group) or to continue on clopidogrel (HPR nonswitch group). One‐year clinical outcomes were compared among the groups.
Results
The baseline clinical characteristics were comparable across all groups (all p > .05). At the 1‐year clinical follow‐up, the primary endpoint of MACCE was significantly higher in the HPR nonswitch group than in the non‐HPR and HPR switch groups (19.49% vs. 10.20% or 8.57%, p < .05), which was mainly caused by higher mortality (14.87% vs. 4.51% or 5.71%, p < .05). Major bleeding events were comparable across the groups.
Conclusions
In STEMI patients with HPR, identified by vasodilator stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP)‐determined PFT, switching clopidogrel to ticagrelor could significantly improve 1‐year clinical outcomes without increasing the risk of bleeding.
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.