Efficacy and safety of intracoronary epinephrine versus conventional treatments alone in STEMI patients with refractory coronary no-reflow during primary PCI: The RESTORE observational study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare intracoronary (IC) epinephrine versus conventional treatments alone in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and refractory coronary no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with severe refractory coronary no-reflow (TIMI 0-1, MBG 0-1) during PPCI were prospectively included after initial failure of conventional treatments. Conventional treatments used in both groups included IC nitrates, thrombectomy. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and adenosine. Patients received IC epinephrine or no epinephrine. RESULTS: Intracoronary administration of epinephrine yielded significantly better coronary flow patterns (28.6% TIMI 3, 64.3% TIMI 2, 7.1% TIMI 1, and 0% TIMI 0), compared to those after treatment with conventional agents alone (18.8% TIMI 3, 12.5% TIMI 2, 37.5% TIMI 1, and 31.3% TIMI 0) (p value between groups = .004). In the IC epinephrine vs. no epinephrine group there was a significant reduction of 30-day composite of death or heart failure (35.7% vs. 81.25%), improvement of ejection fraction (p = .01) and ST-segment resolution (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this proof-of-concept study suggest that as compared to use of conventional agents alone, IC epinephrine provides substantial improvement of coronary flow in STEMI patients with refractory no-reflow during PPCI that may result into improved prognosis.

State of the Art: No-Reflow Phenomenon.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the preferred reperfusion strategy for the management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. No reflow is characterized by the inadequate myocardial perfusion of a given segment without angiographic evidence of persistent mechanical obstruction of epicardial vessels. Both pharmacologic and device-based strategies have been tested to resolve coronary no reflow. This article provides an updated overview of the no-reflow phenomenon, discussing clinical evidence and ongoing investigations of existing and novel therapeutic strategies to counteract it.

Age-Related 2-Year Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: the YOUNG TAVR Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To comparatively assess the natural history of patients of different ages undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: For this study, we used the YOUNG TAVR, an international, multicenter registry investigating mortality trends up to 2 years in patients with aortic valve stenosis treated by TAVR, classified according to 3 prespecified age groups: 75 years or younger (n=179), 76 to 86 years (n=602), and older than 86 years (n=221). A total of 1002 patients undergoing TAVR were included. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data in the youngest group were compared with those of patients 76 to 86 years and older than 86 years. Patients were followed up for up to 2 years. RESULTS: Compared with patients 75 years or younger (reference group), patients aged 76 to 86 years and older than 86 years had nonsignificantly different 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.41-1.38; P=.37 and odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.62-2.60; P=.51, respectively) and 1-year mortality (hazard ratio (HR), 0.72; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P=.12 and HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.88-1.40; P=.34, respectively). Mortality at 2 years was significantly lower among patients aged 76 to 86 years (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.90; P=.01) but not among the older group (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.68-1.67; P=.79). The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 30-day mortality score was lower in younger patients who, however, had a significantly higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P=.005 vs the intermediate group and P=.02 vs the older group) and bicuspid aortic valves (P=.02 vs both older groups), larger left ventricles, and lower ejection fractions. CONCLUSION: In the present registry, mortality at 2 years after TAVR among patients 75 years or younger was higher compared with that of patients aged 75 to 86 years and was not markedly different from that of patients older than 86 years. The findings are attributable at least in part to a greater burden of comorbidities in the younger age group that are not entirely captured by current risk assessment tools.

Dual vs single antiplatelet therapy in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease - A meta-analysis.

AIMS: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. The benefits of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) with aspirin in patients with PAD remain subject of ongoing debate. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing DAPT vs aspirin monotherapy in PAD. Incidence rate ratios (RR) and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as summary statistics. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary endpoints were ischemic and bleeding outcomes. Ten studies including 65,675 patients have been included. Compared to SAPT, DAPT was associated with a significant reduction in mortality: RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86-0.92; P < 0.001. Results were consistent across patients with symptomatic PAD and those undergoing bypass or percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA). Similarly, DAPT significantly reduced the risk of repeat peripheral revascularizations (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92; P = 0.002). No significant increase of major bleeding complications was observed with DAPT as compared to SAPT (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.87-1.68 P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: DAPT, as compared to SAPT, significantly reduces mortality in patients with PAD, with no significant increase in bleeding complications. These findings support DAPT as the mainstay antiplatelet therapeutic regimen in patients with PAD.