Browsing by Author "Natarajan, Madhu K. (7102581788)"

Background: During primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), manual thrombectomy may reduce distal embolization and thus improve microvascular perfusion. Small trials have suggested that thrombectomy improves surrogate and clinical outcomes, but a larger trial has reported conflicting results. Methods: We randomly assigned 10,732 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI to a strategy of routine upfront manual thrombectomy versus PCI alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure within 180 days. The key safety outcome was stroke within 30 days. Results: The primary outcome occurred in 347 of 5033 patients (6.9%) in the thrombectomy group versus 351 of 5030 patients (7.0%) in the PCI-alone group (hazard ratio in the thrombectomy group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.15; P = 0.86). The rates of cardiovascular death (3.1% with thrombectomy vs. 3.5% with PCI alone; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12; P = 0.34) and the primary outcome plus stent thrombosis or target-vessel revascularization (9.9% vs. 9.8%; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14; P = 0.95) were also similar. Stroke within 30 days occurred in 33 patients (0.7%) in the thrombectomy group versus 16 patients (0.3%) in the PCI-alone group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.75; P = 0.02). Conclusions: In patients with STEMI who were undergoing primary PCI, routine manual thrombectomy, as compared with PCI alone, did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA class IV heart failure within 180 days but was associated with an increased rate of stroke within 30 days. Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have been shown to reduce mortality in patients after myocardial infarction with congestive heart failure. Whether routine use of spironolactone is beneficial after myocardial infarction is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention to receive either spironolactone or placebo and either colchicine or placebo. The results of the spironolactone trial are reported here. The two primary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure, evaluated as the total number of events; and a composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, new or worsening heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 7062 patients at 104 centers in 14 countries; 3537 patients were assigned to receive spironolactone and 3525 to receive placebo. At the time of our analyses, the vital status was unknown for 45 patients (0.6%). For the first primary outcome, there were 183 events (1.7 per 100 patient-years) in the spironolactone group as compared with 220 events (2.1 per 100 patient-years) in the placebo group over a median follow-up period of 3 years (hazard ratio adjusted for competing risk of death from noncardiovascular causes, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.21; P = 0.51). With respect to the second primary outcome, an event occurred in 280 of 3537 patients (7.9%) in the spironolactone group and 294 of 3525 patients (8.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio adjusted for competing risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = 0.60). Serious adverse events were reported in 255 patients (7.2%) in the spironolactone group and 241 (6.8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with myocardial infarction, spironolactone did not reduce the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure or the incidence of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new or worsening heart failure. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03048825.). Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.

Objectives: To assess the relationship between preprocedural anticoagulation use and clinical and angiographic outcomes. Background: For patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the optimal timing of anticoagulant administration remains uncertain. Methods: Patients enrolled in the TOTAL trial were stratified based on whether or not they had received any parenteral anticoagulant prior to randomization and PCI. Baseline and procedural characteristics were compared. For one-year clinical outcomes, Cox proportional modeling adjusted on a propensity score was used to analyze differences between groups. Angiographic endpoints were analyzed by logistic regression models adjusted for propensity scores. Results: In the trial, 10,064 patients were enrolled and underwent PCI. Preprocedural anticoagulation was used in 6,381 patients (63%).The most common anticoagulant was intravenous unfractionated heparin (5,188, 81%). Patients who received preprocedural anticoagulation had higher rates of TIMI-2-3 or TIMI-3 flow and lower grades of thrombus prior to PCI. Pretreatment with anticoagulation was associated with lower use of bailout thrombectomy, GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and intra-aortic balloon pump. After adjustment, preprocedural anticoagulation was associated with lower rates of CABG and minor bleeding at 1 year but there were no significant differences in death, stroke, recurrent MI, cardiogenic shock, or congestive heart failure. Conclusions: Preprocedural anticoagulation is associated with improved flow and reduced thrombus in the IRA prior to PCI, less bailout thrombectomy during PCI but no difference in death, recurrent infarction, or heart failure at 1 year. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.