Search

Background: The optimal transfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI)-associated anemia remains uncertain., Objectives: To compare all-cause mortality between liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies in patients with AMI-associated anemia, using a meta-analytic approach., Methods: Pubmed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies in AMI-associated anemia. Random-effects meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted to compare blood use, efficacy, and safety endpoints. The p-values were 2-sided with an α of 0.05., Results: In a pooled analysis involving 4,217 participants from three RCTs followed-up for 30 days, no statistically significant differences emerged between restrictive and liberal strategies in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.67-1.57; p=0.90) and other efficacy endpoints (recurrent AMI, unscheduled revascularization, acute heart failure, stroke, and acute kidney injury), as well as in safety endpoints including allergic reactions, infection, and acute lung injury. TSA did not reach futility boundaries. In patients assigned to restrictive strategy, substantial differences in transfusion use were observed across RCTs, correlating with mortality rates, and likely accounting for between-study heterogeneity in treatment effects., Conclusions: In patients with AMI-associated anemia, there is no clear superiority between liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies in all-cause mortality or other major outcomes in 30 days. However, the heterogeneity observed in blood use between the restrictive groups likely explains variable findings across RCTs.

Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) associated with a decreased risk of death and hospitalization for selected patients with heart failure (HF). However, its association with improved atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the association of ARNI with ASCVD events in patients with HF. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies comparing ARNIs with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in terms of myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, peripheral artery disease, and the composite end point in patients with HF. A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included, with 17,541 patients assigned to either the ARNI (8,764 patients) or ACEi/ARB (8,777 patients) groups. The incidence of composite end point (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.13, p = 0.63), myocardial infarction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, p = 0.85), angina pectoris (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17, p = 0.70), and stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, p = 0.93) were not statistically different between the ARNI and ACEi/ARB groups. However, ARNI was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.52, p = 0.03). In conclusion, this meta-analysis found no association between ARNI therapy and improved ASCVD events in patients with HF., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. Carvalho reports article publishing charges and travel were provided by University of São Paulo Heart Institute. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pretreatment with oral P2Y12 inhibitors is a standard practice for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitors pretreatment remain unclear., Objectives: We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the impact of P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment on thrombotic and hemorrhagic endpoints in STEMI patients., Methods: We searched multiple databases for studies that compared P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment with no pretreatment in STEMI patients and reported endpoints of interest. Random effects model was used for the meta-analysis., Results: Our meta-analysis included 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 observational studies, comprising 70,465 patients assigned to either P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment (50,328 patients) or no pretreatment (20,137 patients). Compared to no pretreatment, P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment did not result in significant reductions in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.03; p = 0.07), myocardial infarction (RR 0.75; 95% CI: 0.53-1.07; p = 0.11), or major bleeding (RR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.56-1.16; p = 0.22) at 30 days. However, our subgroup analysis revealed that P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment administered in the pre-hospital setting was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction compared to no pretreatment (RR 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56-0.91; p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that pretreatment with oral P2Y12 inhibitors before PCI in patients with STEMI was not associated with reduced all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding. However, pretreatment with P2Y12 inhibitors in the pre-hospital setting appears to be beneficial in reducing reinfarction., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The efficacy and safety of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) relative to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with diabetes and unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) are not well established., Objectives: To perform a meta-analysis evaluating the long-term outcomes after PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES), as compared with CABG, in patients with diabetes and unprotected LMCAD., Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported outcomes after PCI with DES versus CABG in unprotected LMCAD among patients with diabetes. To evaluate the long-term effects of these interventions, we restricted this analysis to studies with a minimum follow-up period of 3 years. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Quality assessment and risk of bias were performed according to Cochrane recommendations., Results: Four RCTs with a total of 1080 patients were included, 553 (51.2%) of whom underwent PCI. There was no difference for individual outcomes of all-cause mortality (RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.86-1.71; p = .27; I 2  = 28%), cardiovascular death (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 0.76-2.18; p = .34; I 2  = 0%), or myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.61-1.45; p = .79; I 2  = 0%). However, the risk of stroke was reduced with PCI relative to CABG (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.18-0.94; p = .04; I 2  = 0%), whereas the risk of any repeat revascularization was higher in the PCI group (RR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.44-2.75; p < .001; I 2  = 0%). The risk of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization was higher after PCI compared with CABG (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.09-1.56; p = .004; I 2  = 0%)., Conclusion: In this meta-analysis with more than 1000 patients with diabetes and unprotected LMCAD followed for a minimum of 3 years, the incidence of repeat revascularization was higher among those treated with PCI, whereas the risk of stroke was higher in patients treated with CABG., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Patients with influenza infection are at increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). There are limited data on the short-term prognosis and management of patients with AMI and concomitant influenza. We examined the National Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2014 for adult patients with a diagnosis of AMI. Patients were stratified into those with or without concomitant influenza. In-hospital therapies and outcomes were compared between groups in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Standardized differences of >10% and p values <0.05 were considered significant. Propensity matching was performed using a caliper radius of 0.01*sigma. Of 4,285,641 patients with a discharge diagnosis of AMI, 12,830 had concomitant influenza. Patients with influenza were older, had a higher burden of co-morbidities, and more often presented with non-ST elevation AMI (90% vs 74%) as compared with those without influenza. Coronary angiography (23% vs 54%) and revascularization (11% vs 41%) were less often pursued in AMI patients with influenza. Patients with AMI and influenza had elevated in-hospital mortality (14%) and multiorgan failure (33%). In a propensity-matched analysis of 23,415 patients, in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.26; p = 0.01), acute kidney injury (OR 1.36; p <0.01), multiorgan failure (OR 1.81; p <0.01), length-of-stay, and hospital costs were significantly higher in those with influenza. In conclusion, patients with AMI and concomitant influenza have an adverse in-hospital prognosis as compared with those without influenza., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Complete atrioventricular (AV) block is known to be reversible in some cases of acute inferior wall myocardial infarction (MI). The reversibility of high-grade AV block in non-MI coronary artery disease (CAD), however, is rarely described in the literature. Herein we perform a literature review to assess what is known about the reversibility of high-grade AV block after right coronary artery revascularization in CAD patients who present without an acute MI. To illustrate this phenomenon we describe a case of 2 : 1 AV block associated with unstable angina, in which revascularization resulted in immediate and durable restoration of 1 : 1 AV conduction, thereby obviating the need for permanent pacemaker implantation. The literature review suggests two possible explanations: a vagally mediated response or a mechanism dependent on conduction system ischemia. Due to the limited understanding of AV block reversibility following revascularization in non-acute MI presentations, it remains difficult to reliably predict which patients presenting with high-grade AV block in the absence of MI may have the potential to avoid permanent pacemaker implantation via coronary revascularization. We thus offer this review as a potential starting point for the approach to such patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]