Clinical, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and angiographic predictors for the final infarct size assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance in acute STEMI patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Final infarct size (IS) after ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a major predictor of mortality. Seeking early predictors for final IS can guide individualized therapeutic strategies for those recognized to be at higher risk. RESULTS: Eighty STEMI patients successfully treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) underwent baseline (within 48 h) 2D, 3D echocardiography with speckle tracking and then underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) at 3 months to assess the final IS. After recruitment, 4 patients were excluded for uncontainable claustrophobia while 76 patients completed the final analysis. The mean ± standard deviation age was 54.1 ± 10.9 years, 84% were males, 25% had diabetes, 26% were hypertensives, 71% were current smokers, 82% had dyslipidemia, and 18% had a family history of premature coronary artery disease. By 3 months, CMR was performed to accurately evaluate the final IS. In univariate regression analysis, the admission heart rate, baseline and post-pPCI ST elevation, STEMI location (anterior vs. inferior), highest peri-procedural troponin, large thrombus burden, baseline thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade, the final myocardial blush grade, the 2D and 3D left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and the 2D and 3D global longitudinal strain (GLS) parameters were significant predictors for the final IS. In the multivariate regression analysis, four models were constructed and recognized the residual post-PCI ST segment elevation, the highest peri-procedural troponin, the 2D-LVEF, 3D-LVEF, and 2D-GLS as significant independent predictors for final IS. CONCLUSIONS: In STEMI patients who underwent successful pPCI, early predictors for the final IS are vital to guide therapeutic decisions. The residual post-pPCI ST elevation, the highest peri-procedural troponin, and the baseline 2D-LVEF, 3D-LVEF, and 2D-GLS can be excellent and timely tools to predict the final IS.

EMPEROR-Preserved: SGLT2 inhibitors breakthrough in the management of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Background: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a complex disease which accounts for more than half of all HF hospital admissions with high prevalence and lack of effective evidence-based management. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is a new antidiabetic drug that recently gained a new role in the management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but its role in HFpEF had yet to be studied. Study and results: EMPEROR-Preserved trial set out to evaluate the effects of SGLT2 inhibition with empagliflozin on major heart failure outcomes in patients with HFpEF. The patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion into two groups; to receive either empagliflozin 10 mg per day (n = 2, 997) or placebo (n = 2, 991) in addition to usual therapy. Empagliflozin led to a 21% risk reduction of the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which was mainly related to a 29% lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure rather than effect on cardiovascular death empagliflozin. The effects SGLT2 inhibitors were consistent in all patients. What we have learnt: The EMPEROR-Preserved trial is the first randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin) in patients with HFpEF. The trial proves that SGLT2 inhibitors (empagliflozin) can significantly reduce HF hospitalization with neutral effect on cardiovascular (CV) death.

Once versus twice daily antihypertensive medications for the control of nocturnal blood pressure: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) shows short-term variability within the 24 h, which can only be assessed with 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). It is of utmost importance to control BP throughout the night to reduce incidence of hypertension complications. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of timing and frequency of antihypertensive medications on the average nighttime and 24-h blood pressure control. RESULTS: The study enrolled 199 hypertensive patients with controlled office blood pressure; 135 (67.8%) patients were on once daily antihypertensive medication (group 1) while 64 (32.2%) patients were on twice daily doses (group 2). The mean office SBP was 128.7 ± 7.8 mmHg in group 1 vs 129.6 ± 6.6 mmHg in group 2, (p = 0.421). ABPM readings for both groups were as follows: mean daytime SBP was 125.4 ± 11.6 mmHg vs 130.1 ± 12.9, p = 0.011; mean nighttime SBP was 117.0 ± 12.4 mmHg vs 123.1 ± 13.9 mmHg, p = 0.002, and mean 24-h SBP was 122.7 ± 10.6 mmHg vs 127.5 ± 12.0, p = 0.005. The prevalence of non-dipping was 68.9% in group 1 vs 70.3% in group 2 patients, p = 0.8 (the mean dipping ratio was 0.93 ± 0.08 in group 1 vs 0.95 ± 0.07 in group 2, p = 0.198). The prevalence of masked hypertension was higher in group 2 (28.1% vs 43.8%, p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: Taking an extra antihypertensive pill at night did not show a decrease in the nighttime or the average 24H blood pressure in hypertensive patients with controlled office BP. On the contrary, patients who used twice daily antihypertensive medications seem to have higher nighttime and 24-h SBP, although the dipping ratio was comparable in both groups.

Masked uncontrolled hypertension: Prevalence and predictors.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on 'masked uncontrolled hypertension' (MUCH) in patients with treated and apparently well-controlled BP is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To define the prevalence and predictors of MUCH among hypertensive patients with controlled office blood pressure. METHODS: One hundred ninety-nine hypertensive patients presented to the specialized hypertension clinics at two University Hospitals. All patients had controlled office blood pressure (less than 140/90 mmHg). Patients were assessed regarding history, clinical examination, and laboratory data. All patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for 24 h, within a week after the index office visit. MUCH was diagnosed if average 24-h ABPM was elevated (systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) despite controlled clinic BP. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients (33.2%) had MUCH according to 24-h ABPM criteria (mean age 53.5 ±â€¯9.3 years, 60.6% men). MUCH was mostly caused by the poor control of nocturnal BP; with the percentage of patients in whom MUCH was solely attributable to an elevated nocturnal BP almost double that due to daytime BP elevation (57.3% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001). The most common predictors of MUCH were smoking, DM and positive family history of DM. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of masked suboptimal BP control is high. Office BP monitoring alone is thus inadequate to ascertain optimal BP control because many patients have an elevated nocturnal BP. ABPM is needed to confirm proper BP control, especially in patients with high cardiovascular risk profile. Smoking, DM and positive family history of DM were the most common predictors of MUCH.