Coronary Angiography After Cardiac Arrest Without ST Segment Elevation: One-Year Outcomes of the COACT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ischemic heart disease is a common cause of cardiac arrest. However, randomized data on long-term clinical outcomes of immediate coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients successfully resuscitated from cardiac arrest in the absence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are lacking. Objective: To determine whether immediate coronary angiography improves clinical outcomes at 1 year in patients after cardiac arrest without signs of STEMI, compared with a delayed coronary angiography strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified analysis of a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluated 552 patients who were enrolled in 19 Dutch centers between January 8, 2015, and July 17, 2018. The study included patients who experienced out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a shockable rhythm who were successfully resuscitated without signs of STEMI. Follow-up was performed at 1 year. Data were analyzed, using the intention-to-treat principle, between August 29 and October 10, 2019. Interventions: Immediate coronary angiography and PCI if indicated or coronary angiography and PCI if indicated, delayed until after neurologic recovery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival, myocardial infarction, revascularization, implantable cardiac defibrillator shock, quality of life, hospitalization for heart failure, and the composite of death or myocardial infarction or revascularization after 1 year. Results: At 1 year, data on 522 of 552 patients (94.6%) were available for analysis. Of these patients, 413 were men (79.1%); mean (SD) age was 65.4 (12.3) years. A total of 162 of 264 patients (61.4%) in the immediate angiography group and 165 of 258 patients (64.0%) in the delayed angiography group were alive (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.63-1.28). The composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or repeated revascularization since the index hospitalization was met in 112 patients (42.9%) in the immediate group and 104 patients (40.6%) in the delayed group (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.77-1.56). No significant differences between the groups were observed for the other outcomes at 1-year follow-up. For example, the rate of ICD shocks was 20.4% in the immediate group and 16.2% in the delayed group (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.66-2.64). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial of patients successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and without signs of STEMI, a strategy of immediate angiography was not found to be superior to a strategy of delayed angiography with respect to clinical outcomes at 1 year. Coronary angiography in this patient group can therefore be delayed until after neurologic recovery without affecting outcomes. Trial Registration: trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR4973.

Long-term safety and sustained left ventricular recovery: long-term results of percutaneous left ventricular support with Impella LP2.5 in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: Mechanical left ventricular (LV) unloading may reduce infarct size when combined with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The Impella LP2.5 is a novel percutaneous left ventricular assist device. Although the short-term safety and feasibility of this device have been demonstrated, the long-term effects are unknown. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the long-term effects of the Impella LP2.5 support on the aortic valve and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 2006, 10 patients with anterior STEMI received 3-day support with the Impella LP2.5 after PCI. The control group consisted of 10 comparable patients, treated according to routine care. For the current study, echocardiography was performed and adverse events were recorded. Mean duration of follow-up was 2.9±0.6 years in the Impella group and 3.0±0.3 years in the control group. No differences in aortic valve abnormalities and LVEF were demonstrated between the groups; nevertheless, LVEF increase from baseline was significantly greater in Impella-treated patients (23.6±8.9% versus 6.7±7.0%, P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Three-day support with the Impella LP2.5 is not associated with adverse effects on the aortic valve at long-term follow-up. LVEF was similar in both groups; however, recovery was significantly greater in the Impella group.