Prognostic role of inflammatory cytokines and novel adipokines in acute myocardial infarction: An updated and comprehensive review.

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The inflammation response during and after AMI is common and seems to play a key role in the peri-AMI period, related with ischaemia-reperfusion injury, adverse cardiac remodelling, infarct size and poor prognosis. In this article, we provide an updated and comprehensive overview of the most important cytokines and adipokines involved in the complex pathophysiology mechanisms in AMI, summarizing their prognostic role post-AMI. Data so far support that elevated levels of the major proinflammatory cytokines TNFα, IL-6 and IL-1 and the adipokines adiponectin, visfatin and resistin, are linked to high mortality and morbidity. In contrary, there is evidence that anti-inflammatory cytokines and adipokines as IL-10, omentin-1 and ghrelin can suppress the AMI-induced inflammatory response and are correlated with better prognosis. Mixed data make unclear the role of the novel adipokines leptin and apelin. After all, imbalance of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines may result in worst AMI prognosis. The incorporation of these inflammation biomarkers in established prognostic models could further improve their prognostic power improving overall the management of AMI patients.

Intracoronary Thrombolysis in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: an Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the standard reperfusion treatment in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Intracoronary thrombolysis (ICT) may reduce thrombotic burden in the infarct-related artery, which is often responsible for microvascular obstruction and no-reflow. METHODS: We conducted, according to the PRISMA statement, the largest meta-analysis to date of ICT as adjuvant therapy to PPCI. All relevant studies were identified by searching the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving a total of 1876 patients were included. Compared to the control group, STEMI ICT-treated patients had fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR 0.65, 95% CI, 0.48-0.86, P = 0.003) and an improved 6-month left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 3.78, 95% CI, 1.53-6.02, P = 0.0010). Indices of enhanced myocardial microcirculation were better with ICT (Post-PCI corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame count (MD - 3.57; 95% CI, - 5.00 to - 2.14, P < 0.00001); myocardial blush grade (MBG) 2/3 (OR 1.76; 95% CI, 1.16-2.69, P = 0.008), and complete ST-segment resolution (OR 1.97; 95% CI, 1.33-2.91, P = 0.0007)). The odds for major bleeding were comparable between the 2 groups (OR 1.27; 95% CI, 0.61-2.63, P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggests that ICT was associated with improved MACE and myocardial microcirculation in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI, without significant increase in major bleeding. However, these findings necessitate confirmation in a contemporary large RCT.

A nurse-led implantable loop recorder service is safe and cost effective.

INTRODUCTION: Implantable loop recorders (ILR) are predominantly implanted by cardiologists in the catheter laboratory. We developed a nurse-delivered service for the implantation of LINQ (Medtronic; Minnesota) ILRs in the outpatient setting. This study compared the safety and cost-effectiveness of the introduction of this nurse-delivered ILR service with contemporaneous physician-led procedures. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing an ILR at our institution between 1st July 2016 and 4th June 2018 were included. Data were prospectively entered into a computerized database, which was retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 475 patients underwent ILR implantation, 271 (57%) of these were implanted by physicians in the catheter laboratory and 204 (43%) by nurses in the outpatient setting. Six complications occurred in physician-implants and two in nurse-implants (P = .3). Procedural time for physician-implants (13.4 ± 8.0 minutes) and nurse-implants (14.2 ± 10.1 minutes) were comparable (P = .98). The procedural cost was estimated as £576.02 for physician-implants against £279.95 with nurse-implants, equating to a 57.3% cost reduction. In our center, the total cost of ILR implantation in the catheter laboratory by physicians was £10 513.13 p.a. vs £6661.55 p.a. with a nurse-delivered model. When overheads for running, cleaning, and maintaining were accounted for, we estimated a saving of £68 685.75 was performed by moving to a nurse-delivered model for ILR implants. Over 133 catheter laboratory and implanting physician hours were saved and utilized for other more complex procedures. CONCLUSION: ILR implantation in the outpatient setting by suitably trained nurses is safe and leads to significant financial savings.

Intravenous Landiolol for Rate Control in Supraventricular Tachyarrhythmias in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: This systematic review explores the effects of landiolol administration in individuals presenting with supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SVT) and concurrent left ventricular dysfunction, without being septic or in a peri-operative period. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, retrieving a total of 15 eligible studies according to prespecified eligibility criteria. Results: Patients treated with landiolol experienced a substantial reduction in heart rate (HR) (mean HR reduction: 42 bpm, 95% confidence intervals (CIs): 37-47, I2 = 82%) and were more likely to achieve the target HR compared to those receiving alternative antiarrhythmic therapy (pooled odds ratio (OR): 5.37, 95% CIs: 2.87-10.05, I2 = 0%). Adverse events, primarily hypotension, occurred in 14.7% of patients receiving landiolol, but no significant difference was observed between the landiolol and alternative antiarrhythmic receiving groups (pooled OR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.57-1.83, I2 = 0%). No significant difference was observed between the two groups concerning sinus rhythm restoration (pooled OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.25-3.78, I2 = 0%) and drug discontinuation due to adverse events (pooled OR: 5.09, 95% CI: 0.6-43.38, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: While further research is warranted, this systematic review highlights the potential benefits of landiolol administration in the management of SVTs in the context of left ventricular dysfunction.

Peridialytic and intradialytic blood pressure metrics are not valid estimates of 44-h ambulatory blood pressure in patients with intradialytic hypertension.

PURPOSE: In contrast to peridialytic blood pressure (BP), intradialytic and home BP measurements are accurate metrics of ambulatory BP load in hemodialysis patients. This study assessed the agreement of peridialytic, intradialytic, and scheduled interdialytic recordings with 44-h BP in a distinct hemodialysis population, patients with intradialytic hypertension (IDH). METHODS: This study included 45 IDH patients with valid 48-h ABPM and 197 without IDH. With 44-h BP used as reference method, we tested the accuracy of the following BP metrics: Pre- and post-dialysis, mean and median intradialytic, mean intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis, and scheduled interdialytic BP (out-of-dialysis day: mean of 8:00am/8:00 pm readings). RESULTS: In IDH patients, peridialytic and intradialytic BP metrics showed at best moderate correlations, while averaged interdialytic SBP/DBP exhibited strong correlation (r = 0.882/r = 0.855) with 44-h SBP/DBP. Bland-Altman plots showed large between-method-difference for peri- and intradialytic-BP, but only + 0.7 mmHg between-method difference and good 95% limits of agreement for averaged interdialytic SBP. The sensitivity/specificity and κ-statistic for diagnosing 44-h SBP ≥ 130 mmHg were low for pre-dialysis (72.5/40.0%, κ-statistic = 0.074) and post-dialysis (90.0/0.0%, κ-statistic = - 0.110), mean intradialytic (85.0/40.0%, κ-statistic = 0.198), median intradialytic (85.0/60.0%, κ-statistic = 0.333), and intradialytic plus pre/post-dialysis SBP (85.0/20.0%, κ-statistic = 0.043). Averaged interdialytic SBP showed high sensitivity/specificity (97.5/80.0%) and strong agreement (κ-statistic = 0.775). In ROC analyses, scheduled interdialytic SBP/DBP had the highest AUC (0.967/0.951), sensitivity (90.0/88.0%), and specificity (100.0/90.0%). CONCLUSION: In IDH patients, only averaged scheduled interdialytic but not pre- and post-dialysis, nor intradialytic BP recordings show reasonable agreement with ABPM. Interdialytic BP recordings only could be used for hypertension diagnosis and management in these subjects.