The Relevance of Interventional Time and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with NSTEMI Based on the GRACE Score.

Objective: To investigate the relevance between interventional time and clinical outcomes in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients of different risk stratifications, which were divided into different groups according to GRACE scores and the time from admission to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Method: Patients were grouped according to the GRACE score and the time from admission to intervention therapy. The Cox multivariate risk regression model was used to analyze the correlation between the GRACE score and the time from admission to intervention therapy with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Cox interactive item regression was also used to investigate the correlation between the time of intervention therapy and GRACE risk stratification with clinical outcomes and to evaluate the efficacy of intervention therapy in different risk stratifications of patients with NSTEMI. Results: Interactive item Cox regression analysis and subgroup analysis show that high-risk NSTEMI patients with a GRACE score > 140 points and the time from admission to intervention < 24 h (p = 0.0004) and 24-72 h (p = 0.0143) have interactive effects on the impact of the MACE event with the reference of intervention time > 72 h and GRACE score < 108 points. The time from admission to intervention < 24 h is an independent protective factor for the occurrence of MACE events (HR = 0.166, 95% CI 0.052-0.532, p = 0.0025). Middle-risk patients with NSTEMI with a GRACE score of 109-140 points and the time from admission to intervention < 24 h (p = 0.0370) and 24-72 h (p = 0.0471) have an interactive effect on the impact of MACE. The time from admission to intervention > 72 h is an independent protective factor for the occurrence of MACE (HR = 0.201, 95% CI 0.045-0.897, p = 0.0355). Conclusion: The time from admission to intervention < 24 h could effectively reduce the risk of MACE events within 1 year in high-risk patients with NSTEMI (GRACE score > 140 points); the time from admission to intervention > 72 h can reduce the risk of MACE events within 1 year in low-risk patients with NSTEMI (GRACE score ≤ 108 points).

Reconsidering treatment guidelines for acute myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 affects healthcare resource allocation, which could lead to treatment delay and poor outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on AMI outcomes. METHODS: We compared outcomes of patients admitted for acute ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) during a non-COVID-19 pandemic period (January-February 2019; Group 1, n = 254) and a COVID-19 pandemic period (January-February 2020; Group 2, n = 124). RESULTS: For STEMI patients, the median of first medical contact (FMC) time, door-to-balloon time, and total myocardial ischemia time were significantly longer in Group 2 patients (all p < 0.05). Primary percutaneous intervention was performed significantly more often in Group 1 patients than in Group 2 patients, whereas thrombolytic therapy was used significantly more often in Group 2 patients than in Group 1 patients (all p < 0.05). However, the rates of and all-cause 30-day mortality and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) were not significantly different in the two periods (all p > 0.05). For NSTEMI patients, Group 2 patients had a higher rate of conservative therapy, a lower rate of reperfusion therapy, and longer FMC times (all p < 0.05). All-cause 30-day mortality and MACE were only higher in NSTEMI patients during the COVID-19 pandemic period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 pandemic causes treatment delay in AMI patients and potentially leads to poor clinical outcome in NSTEMI patients. Thrombolytic therapy should be initiated without delay for STEMI when coronary intervention is not readily available; for NSTEMI patients, outcomes of invasive reperfusion were better than medical treatment.

Effects of Evolocumab Added to Moderate-Intensity Statin Therapy in Chinese Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: The EMSIACS Trial Study Protocol.

Background: Several studies have demonstrated that using a higher dose of statin can easily induce liver injury and myopathy. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a well-established modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease; however, the large majority of Chinese patients cannot meet the target level of LDL-C recommended by the Chinese expert consensus. Evolocumab has been demonstrated to reduce LDL-C by approximately 60% in many studies. Nevertheless, whether combined evolocumab and moderate-intensity statin is as effective in lowering LDL-C and decreasing incidence of MACE in Chinese patients presenting with the acute phase of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains unknown. Therefore, the "Evolocumab added to Moderate-Intensity Statin therapy on LDL-C lowering and cardiovascular adverse events in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome" (EMSIACS) is conducted. Methods: The EMSIACS is a prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study involving analyzing the feasibility and efficacy of evolocumab added to moderate-intensity statin therapy on lowering LDL-C levels in adult Chinese patients hospitalized for acute phase ACS. The sample size calculation is based on the primary outcome, and 500 patients will be planned to recruit. Patients are randomized in evolocumab arm (evolocumab 140mg every 2weeks plus rosuvastatin 10mg/day or atorvastatin 20mg/day) and statin-only arm (rosuvastatin 10mg/day or atorvastatin 20mg/day). The primary outcome is the percentage change in LDL-C in weeks 4 and week 12 after treatment. The secondary outcome is the occurrence of MACE after 12weeks and 1year of treatment. Discussion: If the EMSIACS trial endpoints prove statistically significant, the evolocumab added to moderate-intensity statin therapy will have the potential to effectively lower subjects' LDL-C levels, especially for the Chinese patients with acute phase ACS. However, if the risk of MACE is not significantly different between the two groups, we may extend follow-up time for secondary outcome when the clinical trial is over. Clinical trial registration: The study is registered to ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04100434), which retrospectively registered on November 24, 2020.

Clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention for early versus late and very late stent thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Whether the clinical outcomes of stent thrombosis (ST) are different when stratified by time of occurrence remains unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the short- and long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for early stent thrombosis (EST) versus late stent thrombosis (LST) and very late stent thrombosis (VLST). We enrolled eligible studies searched from the main electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane). The primary endpoints were in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year and long-term mortality. The secondary endpoints included recurrent stent thrombosis (RST) and target vessel/lesion revascularization (TVR/TLR) during hospitalization, at 30 days, at 1 year and at long-term follow-up. A total of 23 studies with 17,592 patients were included. Compared with mortality rates of the late and very late thrombosis (LST/VLST) group, in-hospital (P = 0.004), 30-day (P < 0.00001), 1-year (P < 0.00001) and long-term mortality rates (P = 0.04) were significantly higher in the EST group. The in-hospital TVR/TLR rates were similar between the EST group and the LST/VLST group. However, a higher trend in TVR/TLR rate at 30 days and a significantly higher TVR/TLR rate at 1 year (P = 0.002) as well as at long-term follow up (P = 0.009) were found in the EST group. EST patients also trended toward higher risk of RST in both short- and long-term follow-up than LST/VLST patients, although differences were not statistically significant. After PCI treatment, patients with EST have worse clinical outcomes in both short- and long-term follow-up than patients with LST/VLST. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal treatment strategies for EST.

Optimization of GRACE Risk Stratification by N-Terminal Pro-B-type Natriuretic Peptide Combined With D-Dimer in Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

We aimed to explore the utility of multiple biomarkers with GRACE risk stratification for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). A total of 1,357 patients diagnosed with NSTEMI were enrolled in this study at multiple medical centers in Tianjin, China. The outcomes were 1-year all-cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause death, hospital admission for unstable angina, hospital admission for heart failure, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, and stroke). C-index, net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) were calculated to verify that the biomarkers improve the predictive accuracy of the GRACE score. A total of 57 participants died, while 211 participants experienced 231 MACEs during follow-up (mean: 339 days). For all-cause death, the combination of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and D-dimer improved the predictive accuracy of GRACE the most, with C-index, IDI, and NRI values of 0.88, 0.085, and 1.223, respectively. For MACE, trigeminal combination of NT-proBNP, fibrinogen, and D-dimer resulted in C-index, IDI, and NRI values of 0.80, 0.079, and 0.647, respectively. As a result, NT-proBNP, D-dimer, fibrinogen, and GRACE comprise a new scoring system for assessing 1-year clinical events. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a significant increase in 1-year mortality (score ≥3.85 vs <3.85, p < 0.0001) and 1-year MACE (score ≥1.72 vs <1.72, p < 0.0001) between different score groups. In conclusion, the combination of NT-proBNP and D-dimer added prognostic value to GRACE for all-cause death. Combining NT-proBNP, fibrinogen, and D-dimer increased the prognostic value of GRACE for MACE. This newly developed scoring system is strongly correlated with all-cause mortality and MACE, and can be easily utilized in clinical practice.

Clinical Outcomes of Drug-Eluting versus Bare-Metal In-Stent Restenosis after the Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent or Drug-Eluting Balloon: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although drug-eluting stents (DES) have reduced the rates of in-stent restenosis (ISR) compared with bare-metal stents (BMS), DES related ISR (DES-ISR) still occurs and outcomes of DES-ISR remain unclear. The objective of this meta-analysis was to investigate the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with DES-ISR compared with patients with BMS related ISR (BMS-ISR) after the treatment of DES or drug-eluting balloon (DEB). Methods and results. We searched the literature in the main electronic databases including PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The primary endpoints were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The secondary endpoints included all cause death (ACD), cardiac death (CD), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis or re-in-stent restenosis (ST/RE-ISR), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). A total of 19 studies with 6256 participants were finally included in this meta-analysis. Results showed that the rates of TLR (P < 0.00001), TVR (P < 0.00001), CD (P=0.02), ST/RE-ISR (P < 0.00001), and MACEs (P < 0.00001) were significantly higher in the DES-ISR group than in the BMS-ISR group. No significant differences were found between the two groups in the rates of MI (P=0.05) and ACD (P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that patients with DES-ISR had worse clinical outcomes at the long-term follow-up than patients with BMS-ISR after the treatment of DES or DEB, suggesting that DES and DEB may be more effective for BMS-ISR than that for DES-ISR. Positive prevention of DES-ISR is indispensable and further studies concentrating on detecting the predictors of outcomes of DES-ISR are required.

Percutaneous coronary intervention assisted by invasive mechanical ventilation and intra-aortic balloon pump for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: Retrospective cohort study and meta-analyses.

There is little evidence to recommend the optimal invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) modes and ideal positive end-expiratory pressure stress levels for acute myocardial infarction-cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) patients. The aim of this study was to compare the mortality outcome in patients with AMI-CS who were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) assisted by intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) + IMV with historical controls. From January 1, 2016 to June 1, 2017, 60 patients were retrospectively enrolled at Tianjin Chest Hospital. Out of these, 88.3% of patients achieved thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow 3 after PCI. The all-cause mortality rate in-hospital and at 1 year was 25% (95% CI: 0.14-0.36) and 33.9% (0.22-0.46), respectively. A systematic review followed by meta-analysis was performed with four historical studies of patients treated by PCI + IMV with partial IABP, which found an in-hospital mortality rate of 66.0% (95% CI: 0.62-0.71). Recently, a meta-analysis of patients receiving PCI + IABP with partial IMV showed that the 1 year mortality rate was 52.2% (95% CI: 0.47-0.58). In Cox regression analysis of patient data from the current study, lactic acid level ≥4.5 mmol/L, hyperuricemia, and TIMI flow <3 were independent predictors of death at 1 year. All-cause mortality, in-hospital and at 1 year, in patients with AMI-CS treated with PCI + IABP and IMV was lower than in those treated with PCI + partial IABP or IMV. Larger, longer-term direct comparisons are warranted.