Efficacy and safety of abciximab versus tirofiban in addition to ticagrelor in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention.

Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) have been part of the adjuvant treatment of acute coronary syndrome for years. However, real-life data regarding the efficacy and safety of GPIs under the current indications are lacking in the setting of potent platelet inhibition. The objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of abciximab versus tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and pretreated with ticagrelor, and to identify independent predictor factors of efficacy, bleeding and platelet drop. Three hundred sixty-two patients were divided by GPI administered. Clinical, laboratory, angiographic and outcome characteristics were compared. The primary objective was a composite efficacy endpoint (death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke) at 30 days. The secondary objectives were its individual components, safety (bleeding) and the impact on platelet count during hospital stay. The composite efficacy endpoint was similar in the abciximab and tirofiban groups (6.1% vs 7.3%; p = .632). There were also no differences in cardiovascular death (2.5% vs 2.4%; p = .958), nonfatal myocardial infarction (3% vs 4.3%; p = .521) and nonfatal stroke (0.5% vs 1.8%; p = .332). Tirofiban administration was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding (11.6% vs 22%; p = .008) with no differences in BARC ≥ 3b bleeding (3.6 vs 2.5%; p = .760). In STEMI patients undergoing PPCI with ticagrelor, abciximab and tirofiban had similar rates in the composite efficacy endpoint at 30 days. The 30-day bleeding rate was significantly higher in the tirofiban group. Tirofiban administration was an independent predictor of both bleeding and platelet count drop.

Fibrilación auricular isquémica / Ischemic atrial fibrillation

La fibrilación auricular es la arritmia más frecuente en el período peri-infarto agudo de miocardio, aunque su presencia asociada tan solo a la fase de isquemia aguda y su inmediato cese tras una revascularización precoz y efectiva es testimonial en la literatura, con la consiguiente falta de evidencia para su posterior tratamiento. Se presenta un caso clínico en el que el intervencionismo coronario precoz consiguió la cardioversión a ritmo sinusal de una fibrilación auricular en el curso de un infarto agudo de miocardio, posteriormente se discute la estrategia a seguir en torno a la arritmia en un paciente con buena evolución clínica tras el suceso(AU)

Profilaxis de la nefropatíá inducida por contraste en pacientes de alto riesgo con síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del segmento ST / Prophylaxis of contrast-induced nephropathy in high risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome

Introducción y objetivos: La eficacia de la administración conjunta de suero salino isotónico y N-acetilcisteína presenta resultados dispares en la prevención de la nefropatía por contraste yodado. Nuestro objetivo fue valorar la posible eficacia de esta estrategia combinada en pacientes con alto riesgo de desarrollar nefropatía inducida por contraste, ingresados y sometidos a intervencionismo coronario percutáneo por síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del segmento ST en nuestro centro. Método: Se aplicó esta estrategia en los pacientes referidos, con al menos un factor de alto riesgo para desarrollar la nefropatía inducida por contraste: mayores de 80 años, diabetes mellitus, creatinina basal mayor de 1,5 mg/dl o alto volumen de contraste (mayor de 400 ml). El protocolo se aplicó durante 12 meses (pacientes que recibieron el protocolo de prevención) y se comparó con similares pacientes en los 12 meses previos que no recibieron profilaxis. Resultados: Un total de 30 pacientes (24 por ciento) desarrollaron nefropatía inducida por contraste. El porcentaje fue significativamente mayor en el grupo que no recibió profilaxis: 35,9 por ciento vs. 11,5 por ciento (p = 0.003). Conclusiones: La combinación de N-acetilcisteína por vía oral e hidratación parenteral en pacientes de alto riesgo, con síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación de ST, podría ser beneficiosa para evitar la aparición de la nefropatía inducida por contraste(AU)

[The importance of investigating the internal thoracic artery before coronary artery surgery in Leriche's syndrome]. / Importancia del sondaje de la arteria mamaria antes de cirugía coronaria en el síndrome de Leriche.

Frequently, both peripheral and coronary artery disease are present in the same patient. In patients with abdominal aortic occlusion (i.e., Leriche's syndrome) or femoroiliac occlusion, collateral circulation to the lower extremities can originate in branches of the abdominal aorta or even in the internal thoracic artery (depending on the level of the occlusion). It is important to identify the origin of this circulation during diagnostic procedures, especially in patients who may need to undergo coronary revascularization surgery since, in cases where the majority of the collateral circulation originates in the internal thoracic artery, using the artery as a coronary graft could lead to acute ischemia of the lower extremities. We present three patients with Leriche's syndrome in whom the internal thoracic artery was the origin of the collateral circulation to the ipsilateral femoral artery.

Importancia del sondaje de la arteria mamaria antes de cirugía coronaria en el síndrome de Leriche / The importance of investigating the internal thoracic artery before coronary artery surgery in Leriche's syndrome

La enfermedad arterial periférica y la enfermedad coronaria frecuentemente coexisten en un mismo paciente. En los pacientes con oclusión de la aorta abdominal (síndrome de Leriche) o del eje femoroiliaco, la circulación colateral a extremidades inferiores puede originarse en ramas de la aorta abdominal o incluso en la arteria mamaria interna (en función del grado de la oclusión). Es importante filiar, durante el procedimiento diagnóstico, el origen de esta circulación, especialmente en los pacientes que pueden necesitar revascularización coronaria quirúrgica, ya que en los casos con circulación colateral procedente en su mayoría de la arteria mamaria interna, su uso como injerto coronario puede ocasionar isquemia aguda en las extremidades inferiores. Presentamos los casos de 3 pacientes con síndrome de Leriche y circulación colateral desde las arterias mamarias a las femorales homolaterales (AU)

Frequently, both peripheral and coronary artery disease are present in the same patient. In patients with abdominal aortic occlusion (i.e., Leriche's syndrome) or femoroiliac occlusion, collateral circulation to the lower extremities can originate in branches of the abdominal aorta or even in the internal thoracic artery (depending on the level of the occlusion). It is important to identify the origin of this circulation during diagnostic procedures, especially in patients who may need to undergo coronary revascularization surgery since, in cases where the majority of the collateral circulation originates in the internal thoracic artery, using the artery as a coronary graft could lead to acute ischemia of the lower extremities. We present three patients with Leriche's syndrome in whom the internal thoracic artery was the origin of the collateral circulation to the ipsilateral femoral artery (AU)

[Drug eluting stents: long term results in clinical practice. Comparison between rapamycin and paclitaxel eluting stents]. / Resultados a largo plazo del empleo de stents recubiertos de fármacos en la práctica clínica habitual. Comparación entre los stents liberadores de rapamicina y los stents liberadores de paclitaxol.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Drug eluting stents have demonstrated their superiority versus bare metal stents in the reduction of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. Most studies do not identificate differences between rapamycin and paclitaxel eluting stent. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Retrospective study. We identified all patients treated with rapamycin eluting stents or paclitaxel eluting stents during 2003 and 2004 in our center. We analized major adverse cardiac events incidence in the whole group and we investigated for differences between paclitaxel and rapamicin groups. RESULTS: 170 patients were included. 98 treated with rapamycin eluting stents and 72 with paclitaxel eluting stents. Medium follow up was 365 days. There were no differences between groups in demographic or periprocedural variables. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 3.5% in the entire group (2.0% in rapamycin group and 5.6% in paclitaxel group; p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Drug eluting stents show a low incidence of major adverse cardiac events when they are utilized in usual clinical practice. With regard to this, we have not found differences between most used devices in our environment, rapamycin eluting stents and paclitaxel eluting stents.

Serum chitotriosidase activity, a marker of activated macrophages, predicts new cardiovascular events independently of C-reactive protein.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein (CRP) is a well-established inflammation marker associated with cardiovascular risk. However, its relationship with chitotriosidase activity, a novel marker of activated macrophages highly expressed in human atherosclerotic plaques, is unknown. Therefore, we sought to determine if serum chitotriosidase activity predicts the risk of new coronary events, and to analyze its relationship with CRP. METHODS: Chitotriosidase activity and genotype, and high-sensitivity CRP were measured at baseline in 133 middle-aged men with stable coronary heart disease, who were followed for the occurrence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality for a mean of 4 years. We studied the value of these proteins in predicting the risk of new cardiovascular events. RESULTS: Serum chitotriosidase activity was higher in the group of subjects with a prespecified major event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization procedures and death from cardiovascular causes) than in the group of subjects without event, 116 +/- 30.9 nmol/ml x h versus 74.2 +/- 5.69 nmol/ml x h, respectively (p = 0.042). The baseline values of chitotriosidase activity and CRP did not correlate (R = 0.104, p = 0.266), but both parameters were related to a reduction of event-free survival in the Cox regression analysis, with relative risks of 2.61 (p = 0.060) and 2.56 (p = 0.019), respectively. Chitotriosidase activity seems to be a better marker for new events occurring after 2 years of follow-up than in the first 2 years. Both markers had similar predictive values, and their sensitivity (64%) and negative predictive value (84%) were improved when combined. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that serum chitotriosidase activity predicts the risk of new cardiovascular events in the following 4 years. This new cardiovascular risk marker is independent of CRP and, when combined, the prediction of the risk of new cardiovascular events and the identification of a lower risk group seem to improve.

Resultados a largo plazo del empleo de stents recubiertos de fármacos en la práctica clínica habitual. Comparación entre los stents liberadores de rapamicina y los stents liberadores de paclitaxol / Drug eluting stents: long term results in clinical practice. Comparison between rapamycin and paclitaxel eluting stents

Fundamento y objetivo: Los stents liberadores de fármacos han logrado una reducción en la incidencia de eventos clínicos y reestenosis respecto a los stents convencionales. La mayoría de los trabajos no muestra diferencias entre los stents liberadores de rapamicina y de paclitaxol. Pacientes y método: Estudio retrospectivo en el que se seleccionó a todos los pacientes tratados con stents recubiertos de rapamicina o paclitaxol durante los años 2003 y 2004 en nuestro centro. Analizamos la incidencia de eventos cardíacos mayores adversos en el total de pacientes y estudiamos si hubo diferencias entre ambos tipos de stents. Resultados: Se incluyó a 170 pacientes, 98 tratados con stent de rapamicina y 72 con stent de paclitaxol, con un seguimiento medio de 395 días. No hubo diferencias demográficas entre ambos grupos ni en las variables relacionadas con el procedimiento. La incidencia de eventos cardíacos mayores fue del 3,5% (el 2,0% en el grupo rapamicina y el 5,6% en el de paclitaxol; p = 0,43). Conclusiones: Los stents liberadores de fármacos presentan una baja incidencia de eventos cardíacos mayores cuando son utilizados en la práctica clínica habitual. A este respecto, no hemos hallado diferencias entre los dispositivos más utilizados en nuestro medio, el stent liberador de rapamicina y el liberador de paclitaxol

Background and objective: Drug eluting stents have demonstrated their superiority versus bare metal stents in the reduction of restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. Most studies do not identificate differences between rapamycin and paclitaxel eluting stent. Patients and method: Retrospective study. We identified all patients treated with rapamycin eluting stents or paclitaxel eluting stents during 2003 and 2004 in our center. We analized major adverse cardiac events incidence in the whole group and we investigated for differences between paclitaxel and rapamicin groups. Results: 170 patients were included. 98 treated with rapamycin eluting stents and 72 with paclitaxel eluting stents. Medium follow up was 365 days. There were no differences between groups in demographic or periprocedural variables. The incidence of major adverse cardiac events was 3.5% in the entire group (2.0% in rapamycin group and 5.6% in paclitaxel group; p = 0.43). Conclusions: Drug eluting stents show a low incidence of major adverse cardiac events when they are utilized in usual clinical practice. With regard to this, we have not found differences between most used devices in our environment, rapamycin eluting stents and paclitaxel eluting stents

[Does intracoronary abciximab improve the outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions? A randomized controlled trial]. / 'Mejora el uso de abciximab intracoronario el resultado del intervencionismo percutáneo? Estudio prospectivo y aleatorizado.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: It has been clearly demonstrated that abciximab is useful in percutaneous coronary interventions. However, it is not known if intracoronary administration of the initial abciximab bolus improves outcome. Moreover, there may be safety concerns. METHODS: The study was a single-center prospective randomized trial that included all patients undergoing coronary angioplasty involving the use of abciximab. Patients were randomized to either intracoronary or intravenous administration of the abciximab bolus. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (i.e., death, myocardial infarction, or the need for revascularization); secondary endpoints were hemorrhagic complications and the troponin-I level. RESULTS: The study included 137 patients; 72 received an intracoronary abciximab bolus and 65, an intravenous bolus. Clinical characteristics and baseline angiographic findings were similar in the two groups. All patients underwent coronary stent implantation. No difference was observed between the intracoronary bolus group and the intravenous bolus group in type of stent used (drug eluting stent 47.2% vs 50.8%, respectively), total stent length, or final TIMI flow grade (3 vs 2.97, respectively). The intervention success rates were also similar (98.5% vs. 99%, respectively). No complication associated with the administration route was reported. However, the level of the myocardial injury marker troponin I increased significantly in the intravenous bolus group. Clinical follow-up at 1 year did not reveal any difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events: 8.5% in the intracoronary bolus group versus 6.2% in the intravenous bolus group. CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary administration of an abciximab bolus did not appear to be less safe or effective than intravenous administration. Less post-procedural myocardial damage was observed in the intracoronary bolus group.

¿Mejora el uso de abciximab intracoronario el resultado del intervencionismo percutáneo? Estudio prospectivo y aleatorizado / Does intracoronary abciximab improve the outcome of percutaneous coronary interventions? A randomized controlled trial

Introducción y objetivos. La utilidad del abciximab en el intervencionismo coronario percutáneo se ha demostrado plenamente. Sin embargo, se desconoce si la administración intracoronaria del bolo inicial puede aportar ventajas. Igualmente, podría haber dudas acerca de su seguridad. Métodos. Estudio en un solo centro, prospectivo y aleatorizado, en el que se incluyó a todos los pacientes en los que se realizó un intervencionismo coronario percutáneo con abciximab. Se aleatorizó a los pacientes para recibir un bolo de abciximab (ABX) intracoronario o intravenoso. Se analizaron la incidencia de MACE (muerte, reinfarto y necesidad de revascularización) como variable principal y las complicaciones hemorrágicas y las concentraciones de troponina I como variables secundarias. Resultados. Se incluyó a 137 pacientes (72 con ABX intracoronario y 65 con ABX intravenoso). Las características clínicas y los hallazgos angiográficos fueron similares en ambos grupos. Todos recibieron stents. No hubo diferencias en el tipo de stent utilizado (recubierto activo del 47,2 frente al 50,8%), la longitud total del stent y el flujo TIMI final (3 frente a 2,97). Los resultados del intervencionismo coronario percutáneo fueron similares: se realizó con éxito en el 98,5% de los pacientes del grupo ABX intracoronario y en el 99% del grupo ABX intravenoso. No se detectaron complicaciones derivadas de la vía de administración. En el grupo ABX intravenoso se observó una elevación significativa posprocedimiento de la troponina I. En el seguimiento clínico al año no se hallaron diferencias significativas en la incidencia de MACE (el 8,5% en el grupo ABX intracoronario frente al 6,2% en el grupo ABX intravenoso). Conclusiones. La administración intracoronaria del bolo de abciximab no parece menos segura que la intravenosa y es, al menos, igualmente eficaz. Se observó un menor grado de daño miocárdico posprocedimiento en el grupo ABX intracoronario

Introduction and objectives. It has been clearly demonstrated that abciximab is useful in percutaneous coronary interventions. However, it is not known if intracoronary administration of the initial abciximab bolus improves outcome. Moreover, there may be safety concerns. Methods. The study was a single-center prospective randomized trial that included all patients undergoing coronary angioplasty involving the use of abciximab. Patients were randomized to either intracoronary or intravenous administration of the abciximab bolus. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (i.e., death, myocardial infarction, or the need for revascularization); secondary endpoints were hemorrhagic complications and the troponin-I level. Results. The study included 137 patients; 72 received an intracoronary abciximab bolus and 65, an intravenous bolus. Clinical characteristics and baseline angiographic findings were similar in the two groups. All patients underwent coronary stent implantation. No difference was observed between the intracoronary bolus group and the intravenous bolus group in type of stent used (drug eluting stent 47.2% vs 50.8%, respectively), total stent length, or final TIMI flow grade (3 vs 2.97, respectively). The intervention success rates were also similar (98.5% vs. 99%, respectively). No complication associated with the administration route was reported. However, the level of the myocardial injury marker troponin I increased significantly in the intravenous bolus group. Clinical follow-up at 1 year did not reveal any difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events: 8.5% in the intracoronary bolus group versus 6.2% in the intravenous bolus group. Conclusions. Intracoronary administration of anabciximab bolus did not appear to be less safe or effective than intravenous administration. Less postprocedural myocardial damage was observed in the intracoronary bolus group