Circulating microRNA changes in heart failure patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: responders vs. non-responders.

AIMS: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play an important role in the pathogenesis of structural alterations of the failing heart through their ability to regulate negatively the expression levels of genes that govern the process of adaptive and maladaptive cardiac remodelling. We studied whether LV reverse remodelling after CRT was associated with changes of circulating miRNAs in patients with heart failure (HF) and dyssynchrony. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective, non-randomized self-control trial was performed in 81 patients with HF eligible for CRT. At baseline, to select the HF miRNA profile, we evaluated the expression of 84 miRNAs (implicated in the pathogenesis of structural alterations of the failing heart) in three groups of patients: healthy subjects (healthy group, n = 15); patients with HF (HF group, n = 81); and patients without HF matched for age, sex, and concomitant disease with HF patients (control group, n = 60). At 12 months, the selected miRNA profile was evaluated in plasma from responder (n = 55) and non-responder HF patients (n = 26) to CRT. In the test cohort, the HF patients were characterized by lower expression of 48 miRNAs (all P < 0.04) as compared with healthy subjects. In the validation cohort, the HF patients were characterized by lower expression of 24 miRNAs (all P < 0.03) as compared with control patients. At 12 months, 55 patients (68%) were considered responders and 26 non-responders to CRT (32%). Responders showed an increase in expression of 19 miRNAs (all P < 0.03) compared with baseline expression, whereas in the non-responders we observed an increase of six miRNAs (all P < 0.05) compared with baseline expression. At follow-up, miRNAs were differentially expressed between responders and non-responders. The responders were characterized by higher expression of five miRNAs (miRNA-26b-5p, miRNA-145-5p, miRNA-92a-3p, miRNA-30e-5p, and miRNA-29a-3p; P < 0.01 for all) as compared with non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: In responders, reverse remodelling is associated with favourable changes in miRNAs that regulate cardiac fibrosis, apoptosis, and hypertrophy.

Heparin versus bivalirudin for carotid artery stenting using proximal endovascular clamping for neuroprotection: results from a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: General recommendations indicate that, during a carotid artery stenting (CAS), sufficient unfractionated heparin (UFH) has to be given to maintain the activated clotting time between 250 to 300 seconds. Bivalirudin use is able to reduce postprocedural bleedings in percutaneous interventions when compared with UFH. The study purpose was to evaluate, in a randomized study, the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin versus heparin during CAS, using proximal endovascular occlusion (PEO) as a distal protection device. METHODS: From January 2006 to December 2009, 220 patients undergoing CAS using PEO have been randomly assigned to one of the study arms (control arm: 100 UI/kg UFH or bivalirudin arm: 0.75 mg/kg intravenous bolus and intraprocedural infusion at 1.75 mg/kg/h). RESULTS: Procedural success was achieved in all the patients. No episodes of intraprocedural thrombosis occurred. One major stroke occurred in the bivalirudin arm, and two minor strokes occurred, one in each group. A significant difference in the incidence of postprocedural bleedings was observed between the study groups; bivalirudin use was associated with reduced number of bleedings according to Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The use of bivalirudin should be considered a safe and effective anticoagulation regimen during CAS, using PEO as a distal protection device. Bivalirudin use is associated with a reduced incidence of bleedings.