Presence of Bacterial DNA in Thrombotic Material of Patients with Myocardial Infarction

[Abstract] Infectious agents have been suggested to be involved in etiopathogenesis of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). However, the relationship between bacterial infection and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has not yet been completely clarified. The objective of this study is to detect bacterial DNA in thrombotic material of patients with ACS with ST-segment elevation (STEMI) treated with Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PPCI). We studied 109 consecutive patients with STEMI, who underwent thrombus aspiration and arterial peripheral blood sampling. Testing for bacterial DNA was performed by probe-based real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). 12 probes and primers were used for the detection of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Chlamydia pneumoniae, viridans group streptococci, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Tannarella forsythia, Treponema denticola, Helycobacter pylori, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Staphylococus aureus, Prevotella intermedia and Streptococcus mutans. Thus, DNA of four species of bacteria was detected in 10 of the 109 patients studied. The most frequent species was viridans group streptococci (6 patients, 5.5%), followed by Staphylococus aureus (2 patients, 1.8%). Moreover, a patient had DNA of Porphyromonas gingivalis (0.9%); and another patient had DNA of Prevotella intermedia (0.9%). Bacterial DNA was not detected in peripheral blood of any of our patients. In conclusion, DNA of four species of endodontic and periodontal bacteria was detected in thrombotic material of 10 STEMI patients. Bacterial DNA was not detected in the peripheral blood of patients with bacterial DNA in their thrombotic material. Bacteria could be latently present in plaques and might play a role in plaque instability and thrombus formation leading to ACS

Economic evaluation of complete revascularization versus stress echocardiography-guided revascularization in the STEACS with multivessel disease

[Resumen] Introducción y objetivos. Los estudios económicos pueden ayudar a tomar decisiones en el tratamiento de la enfermedad multivaso en el infarto. Se planteó realizar una evaluación económica del ensayo clínico CROSS-AMI (Complete Revascularization or Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Multivessel Disease and ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction). Métodos. Se realizó un análisis de comparación de costes económicos de las estrategias (revascularización angiográfica completa [RCom] y revascularización selectiva guiada por isquemia en ecocardiograma de estrés [RSel]) comparadas en el ensayo clínico CROSS-AMI (N = 306), derivados de la hospitalización inicial y del primer año de seguimiento, según las tarifas oficiales vigentes en nuestro sistema de salud. Resultados. El coste de la hospitalización inicial resultó superior en el grupo de RCom que en la rama de RSel (19.657,9 ± 6.236,8 frente a 14.038,7 ± 4.958,5 euros; p < 0,001). No hubo diferencias entre ambos grupos en el coste del primer año de seguimiento (RCom, 2.423,5 ± 4.568,0 euros; Rsel, 2.653,9 ± 5.709,1 euros; p = 0,697). El coste total fue 22.081,3 ± 7.505,6 euros en la rama de RCom y 16.692,6 ± 7.669,9 euros en la rama de RSel (p < 0,001). Conclusiones. En el ensayo clínico CROSS-AMI, el sobrecoste inicial de la RCom frente a la RSel no se vio compensado por un ahorro significativo en el seguimiento. La RSel parece ser una estrategia más eficiente que la RCom para los pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo con elevación del segmento ST y enfermedad multivaso tratados mediante angioplastia emergente.[Abstract] Introduction and objectives. Economic studies may help decision making in the management of multivessel disease in the setting of myocardial infarction. We sought to perform an economic evaluation of CROSS-AMI (Complete Revascularization or Stress Echocardiography in Patients With Multivessel Disease and ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction) randomized clinical trial. Methods. We performed a cost minimization analysis for the strategies (complete angiographic revascularization [ComR] and selective stress echocardiography–guided revascularization [SelR]) compared in the CROSS-AMI clinical trial (N = 306), attributable the initial hospitalization and readmissions during the first year of follow-up, using current rates for health services provided by our health system. Results. The index hospitalization costs were higher in the ComR group than in SelR arm (19 657.9 ± 6236.8 € vs 14 038.7 ± 4958.5 €; P < .001). There were no differences in the costs of the first year of follow-up rehospitalizations between both groups for (ComR 2423.5 ± 4568.0 vs SelR 2653.9 ± 5709.1; P = .697). Total cost was 22 081.3 ± 7505.6 for the ComR arm and 16 692.6 ± 7669.9 for the SelR group (P < .001). Conclusions. In the CROSS-AMI trial, the initial extra economic costs of the ComR versus SelR were not offset by significant savings during follow-up. SelR seems to be more efficient than ComR in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease treated by emergent angioplasty