RESUMO
(1) Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock is subject to debate. This analysis aims to elucidate the impact of MCS's timing on patient outcomes, based on data from the PREPARE CS registry. (2) Methods: The PREPARE CS prospective registry includes patients who experienced cardiogenic shock (SCAI classes C-E) and were subsequently referred for cardiac catheterization. Our present analysis included a subset of this registry, in whom MCS was used and who underwent coronary intervention due to myocardial infarction. Patients were categorized into an Upfront group and a Procedural group, depending on the timing of MCS's introduction in relation to their PCI. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. (3) Results: In total, 71 patients were included. MCS was begun prior to PCI in 33 (46%) patients (Upfront), whereas 38 (54%) received MCS during or after the initiation of PCI (Procedural). The groups' baseline characteristics and hemodynamic parameters were comparable. The Upfront group had a higher utilization of the Impella® device compared to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (67% vs. 33%), while the Procedural group exhibited a balanced use of both (50% vs. 50%). Most patients suffered from multi-vessel disease in both groups (82% vs. 84%, respectively; p = 0.99), and most patients required a complex PCI procedure; the latter was more prevalent in the Upfront group (94% vs. 71%, respectively; p = 0.02). Their rates of complete revascularization were comparable (52% vs. 34%, respectively; p = 0.16). Procedural CPR was significantly more frequent in the Procedural group (45% vs. 79%, p < 0.05); however, in-hospital mortality was similar (61% vs. 79%, respectively; p = 0.12). (4) Conclusions: The upfront implantation of MCS in myocardial infarction-associated CS did not provide an in-hospital survival benefit.
RESUMO
Lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is considered an independent risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. The plasma concentration of Lp(a) is largely genetically determined but varies over a wide range within the population. This study investigated changes in Lp(a) levels after an acute myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent coronary angiography due to an ST elevation myocardial infarction were enrolled (n = 86), and Lp(a) levels were measured immediately after the intervention, one day, two days, and at a post-discharge follow-up visit at 3 to 6 months after the acute myocardial infarction. Median Lp(a) levels increased from a median of 7.9 mg/dL (3.8-37.1) at hospital admission to 8.4 mg/dL (3.9-35.4) on the following day, then to 9.3 mg/dL (3.7-39.1) on day two (p < 0.001), and to 11.2 mg/dL (4.4-59.6) at the post-discharge follow-up (p < 0.001). Lp(a) levels were the lowest during the acute myocardial infarction and started to increase significantly immediately thereafter, with the highest levels at the post-discharge follow-up. The moderate but significant increase in Lp(a) in people with acute myocardial infarction appears to be clinically relevant on an individual basis, especially when specific Lp(a) cut-off levels are supposed to determine the initiation of future treatment. Hence, a repeated measurement of Lp(a) after myocardial infarction should be performed.
