Concurrent G-CSF and GM-CSF administration for the induction of bone marrow-derived cell mobilization in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a pilot study evaluating feasibility, safety and efficacy

AIMS: To verify feasibility and safety of bone marrow stem cells (BMC) mobilization in patients (pts) with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and to monitor the clinical effects of BMC mobilization in terms of myocardial perfusion and function. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eight male pts (median age: 50.5 years) treated with a primary PTCA were enrolled. The mobilization regimen consisted of G-CSF 5 microg/kg/12 h from day 0 to day +2 and GM-CSF 2.5 microg/kg/24 h. All pts underwent coronary angiography, intracoronary doppler flow study, echocardiography, and nuclear thallium scan before treatment and at 6 months. All pts showed increased values of WBC and circulating CD34+ following cytokine administration. No patient died. All patients completed a 6-months follow-up: target lesion revascularization rate was 12,5%, target vessel revascularization rate was 37.5%, angiographic mean ejection fraction increased from 49.8+/-11.9 to 55.4+/-8.7 (p=NS), mean coronary flow reserve from 1.63+/-0.42 to 2.5+/-0.4 (p=0.001), mean Thallium uptake raised from 55.56+/-16.42% to 67.56+/-13.66% (p=0.01), and normally perfused segments from 16% to 52% (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Cytokine-induced BMC mobilization is feasible in AMI pts. Improvements of myocardial perfusion can be expected after PTCA associated with G-CSF and GM-CSF induced mobilization. Further studies are required to define the role of BMC-mobilization and the most effective cytokine combination

Meta-Analysis Comparing Complete or Culprit Only Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Disease Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock

The optimal strategy for patients with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel (MV) coronary artery disease complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials and observational studies that reported adjusted effect measures to evaluate the association of MV-PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention), compared with culprit only (C)-PCI, with cardiovascular events in patients admitted for CS and MV disease. We identified 12 studies (n = 1 randomized controlled trials, n = 11 observational) that included 7,417 patients (n = 1,809 treated with MV-PCI and n = 5,608 with C-PCI). When compared with C-PCI, MV-PCI was not associated with an increased risk of short-term death (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87 to 1.48, p = 0.35 and adjusted OR [ORadj] 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.43, p = 1.00). In-hospital and/or short-term mortality tended to be higher with MV-PCI, when compared with C-PCI, for CS patients needing dialysis (ß 0.12, 95% CI from 0.049 to 0.198; p= 0.001), whereas MV-PCI was associated with lower in-hospital and/or short-term mortality in patients with an anterior MI (ß −0.022, 95% CI −0.03 to −0.01; p <0.001). MV-PCI strategy was associated with a more frequent need for dialysis or contrast-induced nephropathy after revascularization (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75, p = 0.02). In conclusion, MV-PCI seems not to increase risk of death during short- or long-term follow-up when compared with C-PCI in patients admitted for MV coronary artery disease and MI complicated by CS. Furthermore, it appears a more favorable strategy in patients with anterior MI, whereas the increased risk for AKI and its negative prognostic impact should be considered in decision-making process. Further studies are needed to confirm our hypothesis on in these subpopulations of CS patients