Role of Intracoronary Adrenaline in the Treatment of No-Reflow Phenomenon in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

The no-reflow phenomenon is defined as the failure to restore coronary flow demonstrated by the reduced or missing flow in angiography despite the patent artery. There are pharmacological strategies proposed and studied to manage the no-reflow phenomenon. The medication groups used are purine nucleoside (adenosine), calcium channel blockers (verapamil, nicardipine), beta 2 receptor agonists (adrenaline, nitroprusside), fibrinolytic agents (streptokinase, tissue plasminogen activators), glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (abciximab, tirofiban). We present a case of a woman hospitalized in non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) conditions. The patient underwent coronary angiography, in which a single vessel coronary artery disease (CAD); left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis of 90% was found. In this condition, the patient underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of LAD. The no-reflow phenomenon occurred with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade of 0 during the procedure. As a consequence, the patient presented chest pain and important hypotension (BP of 70/45). Because of the hypotensive state of the patient, we decided to administer intracoronary (IC) adrenaline directly. In our case, we used adrenaline as a first-line treatment for the no-flow phenomenon due to the hypotensive state during the PCI procedure. Generally, we initially use IC nitrate or IC adenosine to resolve the phenomenon, and when the no-reflow persists we use IC adrenaline because of its side effects mentioned above. Anyway, we believe that in specific cases of hypotension and bradycardia, the use of adrenaline as the first line of therapy should be considered.

Timing of Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with multivessel coronary artery disease, the time at which complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions should be performed remains unknown. METHODS: We performed an international, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 37 sites in Europe. Patients in a hemodynamically stable condition who had STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; immediate group) or PCI of the culprit lesion followed by staged multivessel PCI of nonculprit lesions within 19 to 45 days after the index procedure (staged group). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year after randomization. The percentages of patients with a primary or secondary end-point event are provided as Kaplan-Meier estimates at 6 months and at 1 year. RESULTS: We assigned 418 patients to undergo immediate multivessel PCI and 422 to undergo staged multivessel PCI. A primary end-point event occurred in 35 patients (8.5%) in the immediate group as compared with 68 patients (16.3%) in the staged group (risk ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.72; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P<0.001 for superiority). Nonfatal myocardial infarction and unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization occurred in 8 patients (2.0%) and 17 patients (4.1%), respectively, in the immediate group and in 22 patients (5.3%) and 39 patients (9.3%), respectively, in the staged group. The risk of death from any cause, the risk of stroke, and the risk of hospitalization for heart failure appeared to be similar in the two groups. A total of 104 patients in the immediate group and 145 patients in the staged group had a serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in hemodynamically stable condition with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year. (Supported by Boston Scientific; MULTISTARS AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03135275.).

Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic Effects on Admissions and In-Hospital Outcomes in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI): An Albanian Observational Study.

Background Multiple studies conducted worldwide and in Albania documented an important reduction of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) admissions during the Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. There are few studies regarding STEMI admissions and outcomes during the ongoing pandemic after the initial lockdown. We aimed to study STEMI admissions and in-hospital outcomes after the COVID-19 lockdown period. Methods A retrospective single-center study was conducted, collecting data for all consecutive STEMI admissions from March 9th, (the first COVID-19 case) until April 30th, the corresponding period of 2020 total lockdown, for years 2019 and 2021. The control period was considered the year 2019 [pre-pandemic (PP)] and the study period was in 2021 [ongoing pandemic (OP)]. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to compare all-STEMI admissions, invasive procedures, and risk ratio (RR) 95% CI to compare the mortality and complications rate between the study and control period. Results The study included 217 STEMI patients admitted in 2019, and 234 patients during the 2021 period. The overall-STEMI admissions IRR is in a similar range during the 2021 OP compared to the 2019 PP period IRR=1.07 (95%CI 0.90-1.28). Similar invasive procedures were observed during OP compared to PP period, respectively for coronary-angiography IRR= 1.07; (0.87-1.31), for all-PCI [1.12 (0.92-1.35)], and primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) [1.09 (0.89-1.34)]. The STEMI death rate during OP compared to PP period was similar (7.3 vs. 7.4%), RR=1.01 (0.53-1.96), and a non-significant lower primary-PCI-death rate (4.0 vs 4.8%), RR= 0.83 (0.30-2.3)]. Conclusions After the initial reduction of admissions and invasive procedures in STEMI patients during the 2020 lockdown period and the increase of all-STEMI mortality, the number of hospitalizations, invasive procedures, and mortality returned to a similar range during OP compared to the PP period despite a highly incident ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Gender Differences in Admissions and In-Hospital Outcomes of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

Background The incidence of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) decreased during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Few studies have investigated gender differences in ACS admissions and outcomes during pandemics and have presented divergent results. This study aimed to investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on male and female hospitalizations and in-hospital outcomes in patients presenting with ACS. Methodology We designed a retrograde, single-center trial gathering data for ACS hospitalizations during the lockdown (March 9, 2020, to April 30, 2020) compared with the same timeframe of 2019. ACS hospitalizations were subgrouped as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-STEMI (NSTEMI), and unstable angina (UA). We calculated the incidence rate ratio (IRR) to compare all-ACS and subgroups for male and female hospitalizations and the risk ratio (RR) to compare overall male/female mortality. Results This study included 321 ACS patients (238 males, 83 females) during the COVID-19 lockdown and 550 patients (400 males, 150 females) during 2019. The IRRs of all-ACS/males/females were significantly lower during the COVID-19 period at 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.76), 0.59 (95% CI = 0.43-0.75), and 0.55 (95% CI = 0.37-0.74), respectively. The IRR for STEMI was significantly lower among females (0.59 (95% CI = 0.39-0.89)), but not among males (0.76 (95% CI = 0.55-1.08)) The IRR for NSTEMI was not significantly lower, meanwhile it was significantly lower for UA among both males and females. The overall ACS mortality increased during the COVID-19 period (7.4% vs. 3.4%; RR = 2.16 (95% CI = 1.20-3.89)). Important increase was found in males (7.45% vs. 2.5%; RR = 3.02 (95% CI = 1.42-6.44)), but not in females (7.2% vs. 6%; RR = 1.20 (95% CI = 0.44-3.27). Conclusions The admissions of ACS reduced similarly in males and females during the COVID-19 pandemic. The admissions of STEMI reduced predominantly in females. We identified a substantial increase in the overall ACS mortality, but predominantly in males, reducing the differences between males and females. Further studies are necessary to better understand the increase in male mortality during the pandemic.

Hospitalizations and in-hospital outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: The Albanian experience.

OBJECTIVE: Global studies report a significant decline in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) related hospitalization rates during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak. However, there have been several divergent reports on hospital outcomes. In this study, we aim to investigate the impact of the COVID 19 outbreak on hospitalizations because of STEMI and in-hospital outcomes in Albania. METHODS: This was a retrograde study, collecting data for hospitalizations because of STEMI from March 9, (first COVID 19 case in our country) to April 30, 2020, (period of total lockdown) compared with the same period in 2019 at our center. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) was used to compare admissions because of STEMI and procedures and the risk ratio (RR) to compare mortality and other complication rates. RESULTS: Admissions for STEMI declined during the COVID-19 period from a total of 217 in 2019 to 156 in 2020 (-28.1%) representing IRR 0.719 (p=0.033). PCIs also reduced from 168 procedures in 2019 to 113 in 2020 (-33%), representing an IRR of 0.67, p=0.021. The time from symptom onset to arrival at our intensive care unit was significantly higher in 2020 compared to 2019 (925.6±1097 vs. 438.7±385 minutes, p<0.001). The STEMI death rate during the pandemic compared to the control period was significantly increased to 14.1% vs. 7.8% (RR=1.91 p=0.037, but with no significant increase in primary PCI-STEMI death rate (8.9% vs. 4.8% RR=1.85 p=0.217). Cardiogenic shock also increased during the pandemic to 21.2% from 12.4% in 2019 (RR=1.70 p=0.025). CONCLUSION: Hospitalizations and revascularization procedures for STEMI significantly reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified a substantial increase in the STEMI mortality rate and cardiogenic shock during the pandemic outbreak. Delayed timely reperfusion intervention might be responsible for the increased risk for complications.

Authorship: From credit to accountability - Reflections from the Editors' network.

The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new -(fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

La Red de Editores de la Sociedad Europea de Cardiología (SEC) proporciona un foro dinámico para debates editoriales y respalda las recomendaciones del Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas (ICMJE) para mejorar la calidad científica de las revistas biomédicas. La autoría confiere crédito e importantes recompensas académicas. Recientemente, sin embargo, el ICMJE enfatizó que la autoría también requiere responsabilidad y compromiso. Estos problemas ahora están cubiertos por el nuevo (cuarto) criterio de autoría. Los autores deben aceptar ser responsables y garantizar que las preguntas sobre la precisión y la integridad de todo el trabajo será abordado adecuadamente. Esta revisión discute las implicaciones de este cambio de paradigma en requisitos de autoría con el objetivo de aumentar la conciencia sobre las buenas prácticas científicas y editoriales.

Authorship: From credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors' Network.

The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

Autoría: desde el crédito a la responsabilidad. Reflexiones de la Red de Editores / Authorship: from credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors´ Network / Autoria: do crédito à responsabilidade. Reflexões da Rede de Editores

Resumen: La Red de Editores de la Sociedad Europea de Cardiología (ESC, por su sigla en inglés) constituye un foro dinámico dedicado a discusiones editoriales y respalda las recomendaciones del Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas (ICMJE, por su sigla en inglés) destinadas a mejorar la calidad científica de las revistas biomédicas. La paternidad literaria confiere crédito, además de importantes recompensas académicas. Recientemente, sin embargo, el ICMJE ha destacado que la autoría también exige que los autores sean responsables y se hagan cargo de lo que publican. Estas cuestiones ahora están cubiertas por el nuevo (cuarto) criterio para la autoría. Los autores deben aceptar hacerse responsables de lo que escriben y garantizar un adecuado enfoque de las cuestiones concernientes a la precisión e integridad de todo el trabajo. Esta revisión analiza las implicancias de este cambio de paradigma en los requisitos de autoría con el objetivo de aumentar la conciencia sobre las buenas prácticas científicas y editoriales.

Summary: The Editors´ Network of the European Society of Cardiology provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

Resumo: A Rede de Editores da Sociedade Europeia de Cardiologia é um fórum dinâmico para discussões editoriais e apoia as recomendações do Comitê Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas, visando melhorar a qualidade científica das revistas biomédicas. A autoria confere crédito, além de importantes recompensas acadêmicas. Recentemente, no entanto, o Comitê Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas enfatizou que a autoria também requer que os autores sejam responsáveis do que escrevem e se encarreguem do que publicam. Essas questões agora estão cobertas pelo novo (quarto) critério de autoria. Os autores devem concordar em ser responsáveis e garantir que as questões relativas à precisão e integridade de todo o trabalho sejam abordadas de maneira apropriada. Esta revisão discute as implicações dessa mudança de paradigma nos requisitos de autoria, com o objetivo de aumentar a conscientização sobre as boas práticas científicas e editoriais.

Authorship: From credit to accountability - Reflections from the Editors' network.

The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new -(fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

Autoría: del crédito a la responsabilidad - Reflexiones de la red de editores / Authorship: From credit to accountability - Reflections from the Editors' network

Abstract The Editors’ Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

Authorship: From Credit to Accountability Reflections From the Editors´ Network.

The Editors´ Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

Authorship: from credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors' Network.

The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

Authorship: from credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors' Network.

The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.

A meta-analysis of specifically designed randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: There is an ongoing debate on the optimal drug-eluting stent (DES) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease. We addressed this issue by making a synthesis of the available evidence on the relative long-term efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in these patients. METHODS: Individual patient data were analyzed from 6 randomized trials specifically designed to compare SES with PES in diabetic patients. In total, 1183 patients were followed up for a median of 3.9 years (25th, 75th percentiles 3.4-4.5 years). The primary efficacy end point was target lesion revascularization (TLR). The composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI) was the primary safety end point. Stent thrombosis was a secondary end point. Overall hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated as summary estimates. RESULTS: No significant heterogeneity was seen across the 6 randomized trials for all analyzed events. Sirolimus-eluting stent was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of TLR (HR 0.65 [0.47-0.91], P = .01). No significant differences were observed regarding the risk of death or MI (HR 1.04 [0.74-1.45], P = .83) and stent thrombosis (HR 1.00 [0.31-3.30], P = .67). Mortality was also not affected by the type of DES (HR 0.95 [0.65-1.39], P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: In diabetic patients with coronary artery disease, SES leads to a sustained reduction in the risk of TLR compared with PES. Both these DES types are, however, comparable with respect to the risk of stent thrombosis, MI, or death over long-term follow-up.

Everolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes after placement of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES; Xience V) and the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES; Cypher) in patients with coronary artery disease. The second-generation EES is currently one of the most commonly used drug-eluting stents in clinical practice. Although it has clearly been shown superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents, its relative merits against SES have been less extensively assessed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 5 eligible randomized trials comparing EES with SES in 7370 patients. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events. Secondary end points were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and the composite of definite and probable stent thrombosis. Overall hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for EES versus SES for each of the end points. No heterogeneity across the trials was observed regarding the primary and secondary end points. The risk of major adverse cardiac events (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.08]; P=0.28), cardiac death (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.41]; P=0.92), myocardial infarction (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.35]; P=0.76), repeat revascularization (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.68 to 1.07]; P=0.16), and composite of definite and probable stent thrombosis (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.49 to 1.27], P=0.33) were not significantly different between EES and SES. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis did not show significant differences between EES and SES in terms of clinical efficacy and safety. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to better define the relative merits of these drug-eluting stents.

Long-term outcome after sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients with diabetes mellitus: a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Although it is widely believed that patients with diabetes mellitus obtain the greatest benefit from drug-eluting stents, convincing evidence on long-term efficacy and safety of these stents is lacking. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data from four randomized trials including 583 patients comparing sirolimus eluting with bare metal stents (median follow-up of 4.2 years). These were the only specific trials reporting on drug-eluting stents in diabetic patients. The primary endpoint was the incidence of major cardiac events. The secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction as a safety endpoint and target lesion re-intervention as an efficacy endpoint. Stent thrombosis was also evaluated. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the overall hazard of major cardiac events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.63, P < 0.001) with sirolimus-eluting stents. This was mostly due to a significant reduction in the overall hazard of repeat revascularization (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.41, P < 0.001) in favor of sirolimus-eluting stents. However, the overall hazard of death (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59-1.41, P = 0.68) as well as death or myocardial infarction (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54-1.09, P = 0.14) were not significantly different between the groups. No significant differences were observed regarding stent thrombosis (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15-1.69, P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Sirolimus-eluting stents are highly effective in reducing the risk for major cardiac events and safe in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease.

Drug-eluting stents in acute myocardial infarction: updated meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Use of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains an "off label" indication due to concerns regarding their performance in this patient subset. METHODS: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Internet-based sources of information on clinical trials in cardiology for randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents in patients with AMI. Hazard ratios for the composite of death or recurrent myocardial infarction, (primary safety endpoint), reintervention (primary efficacy endpoint), death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis were calculated performing a meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials with 7,781 patients. RESULTS: There was no difference in the hazard of death or recurrent myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.91; [95% CI 0.75-1.09]) between patients treated with drug-eluting stents versus patients treated with bare-metal stents. Treatment with drug-eluting stents resulted in a significant reduction in the hazard of reintervention (0.41 [95% CI 0.32-0.52]). The hazards of death (0.90 [95% CI 0.71-1.15]), myocardial infarction (0.81 [95% CI 0.63-1.04]), and stent thrombosis (0.84 [95% CI 0.61-1.17]) were not significantly different between patients treated with drug-eluting stents versus patients treated with bare-metal stents. CONCLUSIONS: Use of drug-eluting stents in patients with AMI is safe and markedly reduces the need for reintervention as compared to bare-metal stents.

Influence of involvement of anterior leaflet versus posterior leaflet on residual regurgitation as assessed by transesophageal echocardiography in patients undergoing valve repair for mitral regurgitation due to mitral valve prolapse.

BACKGROUND: Repair of anterior leaflet prolapse is technically more challenging and this might influence outcomes as compared to the repair of posterior leaflet prolapse in patients undergoing surgical correction of mitral regurgitation. We investigated the association of anterior leaflet prolapse with minor residual mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) who underwent valve repair. METHODS: Eligible for this study were consecutive patients with severe MR due to MVP, who underwent mitral valve repair with residual MR by postpump transesophageal echocardiography

Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in diabetic patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from seven randomized trials.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The performance of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in high-risk patients with diabetes and acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who have undergone primary angioplasty has not been previously studied. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DESs in diabetic patients with STEMI. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of individual patient data from seven randomized trials that compared DESs (i.e., sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients with STEMI. The analysis involved 389 patients with diabetes mellitus from a total of 2476 patients. The outcomes of interest were target-lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, death and the composite endpoint of death or recurrent myocardial infarction during a follow-up of 12-24 months. RESULTS: Overall, 206 diabetic patients received a DES and 183, a BMS. The risk of target-lesion revascularization was significantly lower in patients treated with a DES compared to those treated with a BMS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-0.88; P=.02). There was no significant difference in the risk of stent thrombosis between those treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09-1.13; P=.08). Similarly, the risk of the combined endpoint of death or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between patients treated with a DES or a BMS (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36-1.13; P=.12). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMSs, DES use improved clinical outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI: the need for reintervention was reduced, with no increase in mortality or myocardial infarction.