The QT interval and risk of incident atrial fibrillation

Abnormal atrial repolarization is important in the development of atrial fibrillation (AF), but no direct measurement is available in clinical medicine

Effects of ranolazine on astrocytes and neurons in primary culture

Ranolazine (Rn) is an antianginal agent used for the treatment of chronic angina pectoris when angina is not adequately controlled by other drugs. Rn also acts in the central nervous system and it has been proposed for the treatment of pain and epileptic disorders. Under the hypothesis that ranolazine could act as a neuroprotective drug, we studied its effects on astrocytes and neurons in primary culture. We incubated rat astrocytes and neurons in primary cultures for 24 hours with Rn (10−7, 10−6 and 10−5 M). Cell viability and proliferation were measured using trypan blue exclusion assay, MTT conversion assay and LDH release assay. Apoptosis was determined by Caspase 3 activity assay. The effects of Rn on proinflammatory mediators IL-β and TNF-α was determined by ELISA technique, and protein expression levels of Smac/Diablo, PPAR-γ, Mn-SOD and Cu/Zn-SOD by western blot technique. In cultured astrocytes, Rn significantly increased cell viability and proliferation at any concentration tested, and decreased LDH leakage, Smac/Diablo expression and Caspase 3 activity indicating less cell death. Rn also increased anti-inflammatory PPAR-γ protein expression and reduced pro-inflammatory proteins IL-1 β and TNFα levels. Furthermore, antioxidant proteins Cu/Zn-SOD and Mn-SOD significantly increased after Rn addition in cultured astrocytes. Conversely, Rn did not exert any effect on cultured neurons. In conclusion, Rn could act as a neuroprotective drug in the central nervous system by promoting astrocyte viability, preventing necrosis and apoptosis, inhibiting inflammatory phenomena and inducing anti-inflammatory and antioxidant agents

Revascularization for coronary artery disease in diabetes mellitus: Angioplasty, stents and coronary artery bypass grafting

Author Manuscript: 2011 April 14Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are prone to a diffuse and rapidly progressive form of atherosclerosis, which increases their likelihood of requiring revascularization. However, the unique pathophysiology of atherosclerosis in patients with DM modifies the response to arterial injury, with profound clinical consequences for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Multiple studies have shown that DM is a strong risk factor for restenosis following successful balloon angioplasty or coronary stenting, with greater need for repeat revascularization and inferior clinical outcomes. Early data suggest that drug eluting stents reduce restenosis rates and the need for repeat revascularization irrespective of the diabetic state and with no significant reduction in hard clinical endpoints such as myocardial infarction and mortality. For many patients with 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease, there is little prognostic benefit from any intervention over optimal medical therapy. PCI with drug-eluting or bare metal stents is appropriate for patients who remain symptomatic with medical therapy. However, selection of the optimal myocardial revascularization strategy for patients with DM and multivessel coronary artery disease is crucial. Randomized trials comparing multivessel PCI with balloon angioplasty or bare metal stents to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) consistently demonstrated the superiority of CABG in patients with treated DM. In the setting of diabetes CABG had greater survival, fewer recurrent infarctions or need for re-intervention. Limited data suggests that CABG is superior to multivessel PCI even when drug-eluting stents are used. Several ongoing randomized trials are evaluating the long-term comparative efficacy of PCI with drug-eluting stents and CABG in patients with DM. Only further study will continue to unravel the mechanisms at play and optimal therapy in the face of the profoundly virulent atherosclerotic potential that accompanies diabetes mellitus.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (GM 49039

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: Summary article. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to update the 1997 exercise testing guidelines)

"The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines regularly reviews existing guidelines to determine when an update or full revision is needed. This process gives priority to areas where major changes in text, and particularly recommendations, are mentioned on the basis of new understanding or evidence. Minor changes in verbiage and references are discouraged. The ACC/AHA guidelines for exercise testing that were published in 1997 have now been updated. The full-text guidelines incorporating the updated material are available on the Internet (www.acc.org or www.americanheart.org) in both a version that shows the changes in the 1997 guidelines in strike-over (deleted text) and highlighting (new text) and a “clean” version that fully incorporates the changes. This article describes the 10 major areas of change reflected in the update in a format that we hope can be read and understood as a stand-alone document. The table of contents from the full-length guideline (see next page) indicates the location of these changes. Interested readers are referred to the full-length Internet version to completely understand the context of these changes. All new references appear in boldface type; all original references appear in normal type.

ACC/AHA 2002 Guideline Update for Exercise Testing: Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines)

The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines regularly reviews existing guidelines to determine when an update or full revision is needed. This process gives priority to areas where major changes in text, and particularly recommendations, are mentioned on the basis of new understanding or evidence. Minor changes in verbiage and references are discouraged. The ACC/AHA guidelines for exercise testing that were published in 1997 have now been updated. The full-text guidelines incorporating the updated material are available on the Internet (www.acc.org or www.americanheart.org) in both a version that shows the changes in the 1997 guidelines in strike-over (deleted text) and highlighting (new text) and a “clean” version that fully incorporates the changes. This article describes the 10 major areas of change reflected in the update in a format that we hope can be read and understood as a stand-alone document. The table of contents from the full-length guideline (see next page) indicates the location of these changes. Interested readers are referred to the full-length Internet version to completely understand the context of these changes. All new references appear in boldface type; all original references appear in normal type

Effects of alirocumab on types of myocardial infarction: insights from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial

Aims  The third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (MI) Task Force classified MIs into five types: Type 1, spontaneous; Type 2, related to oxygen supply/demand imbalance; Type 3, fatal without ascertainment of cardiac biomarkers; Type 4, related to percutaneous coronary intervention; and Type 5, related to coronary artery bypass surgery. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction with statins and proprotein convertase subtilisin–kexin Type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors reduces risk of MI, but less is known about effects on types of MI. ODYSSEY OUTCOMES compared the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab with placebo in 18 924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and elevated LDL-C (≥1.8 mmol/L) despite intensive statin therapy. In a pre-specified analysis, we assessed the effects of alirocumab on types of MI. Methods and results  Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Myocardial infarction types were prospectively adjudicated and classified. Of 1860 total MIs, 1223 (65.8%) were adjudicated as Type 1, 386 (20.8%) as Type 2, and 244 (13.1%) as Type 4. Few events were Type 3 (n = 2) or Type 5 (n = 5). Alirocumab reduced first MIs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.95; P = 0.003], with reductions in both Type 1 (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77–0.99; P = 0.032) and Type 2 (0.77, 0.61–0.97; P = 0.025), but not Type 4 MI. Conclusion  After ACS, alirocumab added to intensive statin therapy favourably impacted on Type 1 and 2 MIs. The data indicate for the first time that a lipid-lowering therapy can attenuate the risk of Type 2 MI. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below levels achievable with statins is an effective preventive strategy for both MI types.For complete list of authors see http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz299</p

Effect of alirocumab on mortality after acute coronary syndromes. An analysis of the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES randomized clinical trial

Background: Previous trials of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9) inhibitors demonstrated reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events, but not death. We assessed the effects of alirocumab on death after index acute coronary syndrome. Methods: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) was a double-blind, randomized comparison of alirocumab or placebo in 18 924 patients who had an ACS 1 to 12 months previously and elevated atherogenic lipoproteins despite intensive statin therapy. Alirocumab dose was blindly titrated to target achieved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) between 25 and 50 mg/dL. We examined the effects of treatment on all-cause death and its components, cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death, with log-rank testing. Joint semiparametric models tested associations between nonfatal cardiovascular events and cardiovascular or noncardiovascular death. Results: Median follow-up was 2.8 years. Death occurred in 334 (3.5%) and 392 (4.1%) patients, respectively, in the alirocumab and placebo groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P=0.03, nominal P value). This resulted from nonsignificantly fewer cardiovascular (240 [2.5%] vs 271 [2.9%]; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.05; P=0.15) and noncardiovascular (94 [1.0%] vs 121 [1.3%]; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.01; P=0.06) deaths with alirocumab. In a prespecified analysis of 8242 patients eligible for ≥3 years follow-up, alirocumab reduced death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; P=0.01). Patients with nonfatal cardiovascular events were at increased risk for cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths (P<0.0001 for the associations). Alirocumab reduced total nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001) and thereby may have attenuated the number of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. A post hoc analysis found that, compared to patients with lower LDL-C, patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL (2.59 mmol/L) had a greater absolute risk of death and a larger mortality benefit from alirocumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.90; Pinteraction=0.007). In the alirocumab group, all-cause death declined wit h achieved LDL-C at 4 months of treatment, to a level of approximately 30 mg/dL (adjusted P=0.017 for linear trend). Conclusions: Alirocumab added to intensive statin therapy has the potential to reduce death after acute coronary syndrome, particularly if treatment is maintained for ≥3 years, if baseline LDL-C is ≥100 mg/dL, or if achieved LDL-C is low. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01663402