Routine use of supplemental oxygen in patients with suspected myocardial infarction who did not have hypoxemia was not found to reduce 1-year all-cause mortality. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; DETO2X-AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01787110 .).

Background: The comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in older myocardial infarction (MI) patients has received limited study. Methods: We performed an observational analysis of all patients ≥80 years (n=14005) who were discharged alive with aspirin combined with either clopidogrel (60.2%) or ticagrelor (39.8%) after a MI between 2010 and 2017 registered in the national registry Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART). Inverse probability treatment weighting was used in Cox regression models to adjust for differences in demographics, in-hospital therapies, and medications. The primary ischemic outcome (death, MI or stroke), and bleeding were obtained from national registries at 1 year. A sensitivity analysis in <80-year-old patients was performed. Results: In patients ≥80 years, the incidence of the primary ischemic outcome (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.06) was similar for ticagrelor- and clopidogrel-treated patients. Ticagrelor was associated with a 17% and 48% higher risk of death (1.17 (1.03- 1.32)) and bleeding (1.48 (1.25- 1.76)), but a lower risk of MI (0.80 (0.70- 0.92)) and stroke (0.72 (0.56-0.93)). In <80-year-old patients the incidence of the primary ischemic outcome was 17% (0.83 (0.77-0.89)) lower with ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with 15% (0.85 (0.76-0.96)) lower risk of death, 32% higher risk of bleeding (1.32 (1.18-1.47)), but lower risk of MI (0.82 (0.75-0.91)) and stroke (0.82 (0.69-0.98)). Conclusions: Ticagrelor use among elderly MI patients was associated with higher risk of bleeding and death compared with clopidogrel. A randomized study of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in the elderly is needed.

Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SARS-CoV-2 triggers an immune response with local inflammation in the lung, which may extend to a systemic hyperinflammatory reaction. Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications. In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or “cytokine storm,” increased pro-inflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an “eicosanoid storm,” which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation. Specialized pro-resolving mediators, which are derived from omega-3 PUFA, limit inflammatory reactions by an active process called resolution of inflammation. Here, the rationale for omega-3 PUFA supplementation in COVID-19 patients is presented along with a brief overview of the study protocol for the trial “Resolving Inflammatory Storm in COVID-19 Patients by Omega-3 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids - A single-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled feasibility study” (COVID-Omega-F). EudraCT: 2020-002293-28; clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04647604.

No abstract

Key Points Question Is a pretreatment strategy with P2Y12 receptor antagonists associated with better outcomes vs no pretreatment in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention? Findings This cohort study including 64 857 patients from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry found that pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor antagonists was not associated with improved survival nor a lower risk of stent thrombosis but was associated with increased risk of bleeding. Meaning These findings suggest that pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor antagonists should not be routinely used in non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.

Background: The number of patients with myocardial infarction and severe obesity is increasing and there is a lack of evidence how these patients should be treated. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between metabolic surgery (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI) and severe obesity. Methods: Of 566 patients with previous MI registered in the SWEDEHEART registry (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) undergoing metabolic surgery and registered in the nationwide Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry, 509 patients (Roux-en-Y gastric bypass n=465; sleeve gastrectomy n=44) could be matched 1:1 to a control with MI from SWEDEHEART, but no subsequent metabolic surgery regarding sex, age (±3 years), year of MI (±3 years), and body mass index (±3). The 2 groups were well matched, except for a lower proportion of reduced ejection fraction after MI (7% versus 12%), previous heart failure (10% versus 19%), atrial fibrillation (6% versus 10%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4% versus 7%) in patients undergoing metabolic surgery. Results: The median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 4.6 (2.7–7.1) years. The 8-year cumulative probability of major adverse cardiovascular events was lower in patients undergoing metabolic surgery (18.7% [95% CI, 15.9–21.5%] versus 36.2% [33.2–39.3%], adjusted hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.32–0.61]). Patients undergoing metabolic surgery had also a lower risk of death (adjusted HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.29–0.70]; MI, 0.24 [0.14–0.41]) and new onset heart failure, but there were no significant differences regarding stroke (0.91 [0.38–2.20]) and new onset atrial fibrillation (0.56 [0.31–1.01]). Conclusions: In severely obese patients with previous MI, metabolic surgery is associated with a low risk for serious complications, lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, death, new MI, and new onset heart failure. These findings need to be confirmed in a randomized, controlled trial.

Aims To describe the time trends of in-hospital and out-of-hospital bleeding parallel to the development of new treatments and ischaemic outcomes over the last 20 years in a nationwide myocardial infarction (MI) population. Methods and results Patients with acute MI (n = 371 431) enrolled in the SWEDEHEART registry from 1995 until May 2018 were selected and evaluated for in-hospital bleeding and out-of-hospital bleeding events at 1 year. In-hospital bleeding increased from 0.5% to a peak at 2% 2005/2006 and thereafter slightly decreased to a new plateau around 1.3% by the end of the study period. Out-of-hospital bleeding increased in a stepwise fashion from 2.5% to 3.5 % in the middle of the study period and to 4.8% at the end of the study period. The increase in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital bleeding was parallel to increasing use of invasive strategy and adjunctive antithrombotic treatment, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and potent DAPT, while the decrease in in-hospital bleeding from 2007 to 2010 was parallel to implementation of bleeding avoidance strategies. In-hospital re-infarction decreased from 2.8% to 0.6% and out-of-hospital MI decreased from 12.6% to 7.1%. The composite out-of-hospital MI, cardiovascular death, and stroke decreased in a similar fashion from 18.4% to 9.1%. Conclusion During the last 20 years, the introduction of invasive and more intense antithrombotic treatment has been associated with an increase in bleeding events but concomitant there has been a substantial greater reduction of ischaemic events including improved survival.

Although supplemental O therapy is commonly used, it was not associated with important clinical benefits. These findings from eight RCTs support departing from the usual practice of administering oxygen in normoxaemic patients.