Search

Background Long‐term outcomes of ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes have been barely investigated. The objective of this analysis from the EXAMINATION‐EXTEND (10‐Years Follow‐Up of the EXAMINATION trial) trial was to compare 10‐year outcomes of patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction with and without diabetes. Methods and Results Of the study population, 258 patients had diabetes and 1240 did not. The primary end point was patient‐oriented composite end point of all‐cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. Secondary end points were the individual components of the primary combined end point, cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. All end points were adjusted for potential confounders. At 10 years, patients with diabetes showed a higher incidence of patient‐oriented composite end point compared with those without (46.5% versus 33.0%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.05–1.61]; P=0.016) mainly driven by a higher incidence of any revascularization (24.4% versus 16.6%; adjusted HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.19–2.17]; P=0.002). Specifically, patients with diabetes had a higher incidence of any revascularization during the first 5 years of follow‐up (20.2% versus 12.8%; adjusted HR, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.13–2.19]; P=0.007) compared with those without diabetes. No statistically significant differences were found with respect to the other end points. Conclusions Patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction who had diabetes had worse clinical outcome at 10 years compared with those without diabetes, mainly driven by a higher incidence of any revascularizations in the first 5 years. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04462315.

Background Patients with aortic stenosis may continue to have an increased risk of heart failure, arrhythmias, and death after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Renin‐angiotensin system inhibitors may be beneficial in this setting. We aimed to explore whether ramipril improves the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods and Results PROBE (Prospective Randomized Open, Blinded Endpoint) was a multicenter trial comparing ramipril with standard care (control) following successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40%. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac mortality, heart failure readmission, and stroke at 1‐year follow‐up. Secondary end points included left ventricular remodeling and fibrosis. A total of 186 patients with median age 83 years (range 79–86), 58.1% women, and EuroSCORE‐II 3.75% (range 3.08–4.97) were randomized to receive either ramipril (n=94) or standard treatment (n=92). There were no significant baseline, procedural, or in‐hospital differences. The primary end point occurred in 10.6% in the ramipril group versus 12% in the control group (P=0.776), with no differences in cardiac mortality (ramipril 1.1% versus control group 2.2%, P=0.619) but lower rate of heart failure readmissions in the ramipril group (3.2% versus 10.9%, P=0.040). Cardiac magnetic resonance analysis demonstrated better remodeling in the ramipril compared with the control group, with greater reduction in end‐systolic and end‐diastolic left ventricular volumes, but nonsignificant differences were found in the percentage of myocardial fibrosis. Conclusions Ramipril administration after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with preserved left ventricular function did not meet the primary end point but was associated with a reduction in heart failure re‐admissions at 1‐year follow‐up. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03201185.