Early and long-term outcome of elective stenting of the infarct-related artery in patients with viability in the infarct-area: Rationale and design of the Viability-guided Angioplasty after acute Myocardial Infarction-trial (The VIAMI-trial)

BACKGROUND: Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is becoming the standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), to date most patients, even in developed countries, are reperfused with intravenous thrombolysis or do not receive a reperfusion therapy at all. In the post-lysis period these patients are at high risk for recurrent ischemic events. Early identification of these patients is mandatory as this subgroup could possibly benefit from an angioplasty of the infarct-related artery. Since viability seems to be related to ischemic adverse events, we initiated a clinical trial to investigate the benefits of PCI with stenting of the infarct-related artery in patients with viability detected early after acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: The VIAMI-study is designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Patients who are hospitalized with an acute myocardial infarction and who did not have primary or rescue PCI, undergo viability testing by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography (LDDE) within 3 days of admission. Consequently, patients with demonstrated viability are randomized to an invasive or conservative strategy. In the invasive strategy patients undergo coronary angiography with the intention to perform PCI with stenting of the infarct-related coronary artery and concomitant use of abciximab. In the conservative group an ischemia-guided approach is adopted (standard optimal care). The primary end point is the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction and unstable angina during a follow-up period of three years. CONCLUSION: The primary objective of the VIAMI-trial is to demonstrate that angioplasty of the infarct-related coronary artery with stenting and concomitant use of abciximab results in a clinically important risk reduction of future cardiac events in patients with viability in the infarct-area, detected early after myocardial infarction

Outcomes research in the development and evaluation of practice guidelines

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines have been developed in response to the observation that variations exist in clinical medicine that are not related to variations in the clinical presentation and severity of the disease. Despite their widespread use, however, practice guideline evaluation lacks a rigorous scientific methodology to support its development and application. DISCUSSION: Firstly, we review the major epidemiological foundations of practice guideline development. Secondly, we propose a chronic disease epidemiological model in which practice patterns are viewed as the exposure and outcomes of interest such as quality or cost are viewed as the disease. Sources of selection, information, confounding and temporal trend bias are identified and discussed. SUMMARY: The proposed methodological framework for outcomes research to evaluate practice guidelines reflects the selection, information and confounding biases inherent in its observational nature which must be accounted for in both the design and the analysis phases of any outcomes research study

Intracoronary versus intravenous abciximab in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the CICERO trial in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Administration of abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention is an effective adjunctive therapy in the treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Recent small-scaled studies have suggested that intracoronary administration of abciximab during primary percutaneous coronary intervention is superior to conventional intravenous administration. This study has been designed to investigate whether intracoronary bolus administration of abciximab is more effective than intravenous bolus administration in improving myocardial perfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The Comparison of IntraCoronary versus intravenous abciximab administration during Emergency Reperfusion Of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (CICERO) trial is a single-center, prospective, randomized open-label trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. A total of 530 patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are randomly assigned to either an intracoronary or intravenous bolus of weight-adjusted abciximab. The primary end point is the incidence of >70% ST-segment elevation resolution. Secondary end points consist of post-procedural residual ST-segment deviation, myocardial blush grade, distal embolization, enzymatic infarct size, in-hospital bleeding, and clinical outcome at 30 days and 1 year.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The CICERO trial is the first clinical trial to date to verify the effect of intracoronary versus intravenous administration of abciximab on myocardial perfusion in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with thrombus aspiration.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00927615</p

Safety and efficacy of thrombectomy in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for Acute ST elevation MI: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Clinical trials comparing thrombectomy devices with conventional percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have produced conflicting results. The objective of our study was to systematically evaluate currently available data comparing thrombectomy followed by PCI with conventional PCI alone in patients with acute STEMI

Acute ischemic heart disease and interventional cardiology: a time for pause

BACKGROUND: A major change has occurred in the last few years in the therapeutic approach to patients presenting with all forms of acute coronary syndromes. Whether or not these patients present initially to tertiary cardiac care centers, they are now routinely referred for early coronary angiography and increasingly undergo percutaneous revascularization. This practice is driven primarily by the angiographic image and technical feasibility. Concomitantly, there has been a decline in expectant or ischemia-guided medical management based on specific clinical presentation, response to initial treatment, and results of noninvasive stratification. This 'tertiarization' of acute coronary care has been fuelled by the increasing sophistication of the cardiac armamentarium, the peer-reviewed publication of clinical studies purporting to show the superiority of invasive cardiac interventions, and predominantly supporting (non-peer-reviewed) editorials, newsletters, and opinion pieces. DISCUSSION: This review presents another perspective, based on a critical reexamination of the evidence. The topics addressed are: reperfusion treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction; the indications for invasive intervention following thrombolysis; the role of invasive management in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina; and cost-effectiveness and real world considerations. A few cases encountered in recent practice in community and tertiary hospitals are presented for illustrative purposes The numerous and far-reaching scientific, economic, and philosophical implications that are a consequence of this marked change in clinical practice as well as healthcare, decisional and conflict of interest issues are explored. SUMMARY: The weight of evidence does not support the contemporary unfocused broad use of invasive interventional procedures across the spectrum of acute coronary clinical presentations. Excessive and unselective recourse to these procedures has deleterious implications for the organization of cardiac health care and undesirable economic, scientific and intellectual consequences. It is suggested that there is need for a new equilibrium based on more refined clinical risk stratification in the treatment of patients who present with acute coronary syndromes

Whole organisms or pure compounds? entourage effect versus drug specificity

As the therapeutic use of sacred plants and fungi becomes increasingly accepted by Western medicine, a tug of war has been taking place between those who advocate the traditional consumption of whole organisms and those who defend exclusively the utilization of purified compounds. The attempt to reduce organisms to single active principles is challenged by the sheer complexity of traditional medicine. Ayahuasca, for example, is a concoction of at least two plant species containing multiple psychoactive substances with complex interactions. Similarly, cannabis contains dozens of psychoactive substances whose specific combinations in different strains correspond to different types of therapeutic and cognitive effects. The “entourage effect” refers to the synergistic effects of the multiple compounds present in whole organisms, which may potentiate clinical efficacy while attenuating side effects. In opposition to this view, mainstream pharmacology is adamant about the need to use purified substances, presumably more specific and safe. In this chapter, I will review the evidence on both sides to discuss the scientific, economic, and political implications of this controversy. The evidence indicates that it is time to embrace the therapeutic complexity of psychedelics.2019-07-3

Cardiac hybrid imaging: state-of-the-art

The field of noninvasive cardiac imaging has experienced enormous advances including computerized tomography coronary angiography (CTCA). Invasive angiography remains the anatomic standard of reference but it is associated with a non-negligible peri-procedural morbidity and mortality which suggests confining its use to patients who will benefit from a revascularization procedure. Many factors that are beyond the simple quantification of diameter narrowing and therefore cannot be fully assessed with luminology will eventually determine whether or not a given lesion produces stress-induced ischemia. Myocardial perfusion scintigraphy by single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) is one of the most widely used and well established noninvasive tools for the diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Although positron emission tomography (PET) offers a higher accuracy than SPECT its use is often limited to large centers. This article explains the great potential of cardiac hybrid imaging which allows a comprehensive evaluation of coronary artery disease as it combines both morphological and functional information by fusing either SPECT or PET with CTCA. SPECT/CT and PET/CT hybrid imaging can provide entirely noninvasively unique information which helps improving diagnostic assessment and risk stratification and also impacts decision making with regard to revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease