Early intravenous beta-blockers in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction before primary percutaneous coronary intervention

The impact of intravenous (IV) beta-blockers before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) on infarct size and clinical outcomes is not well established. This study sought to conduct the first double-blind, placebo-controlled international multicenter study testing the effect of early IV beta-blockers before PPCI in a general ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population. STEMI patients presenting <12 h from symptom onset in Killip class I to II without atrioventricular block were randomized 1:1 to IV metoprolol (2 × 5-mg bolus) or matched placebo before PPCI. Primary endpoint was myocardial infarct size as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were enzymatic infarct size and incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. Safety endpoints included symptomatic bradycardia, symptomatic hypotension, and cardiogenic shock. A total of 683 patients (mean age 62 ± 12 years; 75% male) were randomized to metoprolol (n = 336) or placebo (n = 346). CMR was performed in 342 patients (54.8%). Infarct size (percent of left ventricle [LV]) by CMR did not differ between the metoprolol (15.3 ± 11.0%) and placebo groups (14.9 ± 11.5%; p = 0.616). Peak and area under the creatine kinase curve did not differ between both groups. LV ejection fraction by CMR was 51.0 ± 10.9% in the metoprolol group and 51.6 ± 10.8% in the placebo group (p = 0.68). The incidence of malignant arrhythmias was 3.6% in the metoprolol group versus 6.9% in placebo (p = 0.050). The incidence of adverse events was not different between groups. In a nonrestricted STEMI population, early intravenous metoprolol before PPCI was not associated with a reduction in infarct size. Metoprolol reduced the incidence of malignant arrhythmias in the acute phase and was not associated with an increase in adverse events.

Comparison of 1-year outcome in patients with severe aorta stenosis treated conservatively or by aortic valve replacement or by percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve implantation (data from a multicenter Spanish registry)

The factors that influence decision making in severe aortic stenosis (AS) are unknown. Our aim was to assess, in patients with severe AS, the determinants of management and prognosis in a multicenter registry that enrolled all consecutive adults with severe AS during a 1-month period. One-year follow-up was obtained in all patients and included vital status and aortic valve intervention (aortic valve replacement [AVR] and transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]). A total of 726 patients were included, mean age was 77.3 ± 10.6 years, and 377 were women (51.8%). The most common management was conservative therapy in 468 (64.5%) followed by AVR in 199 (27.4%) and TAVI in 59 (8.1%). The strongest association with aortic valve intervention was patient management in a tertiary hospital with cardiac surgery (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 4.1, p <0.001). The 2 main reasons to choose conservative management were the absence of significant symptoms (136% to 29.1%) and the presence of co-morbidity (128% to 27.4%). During 1-year follow-up, 132 patients died (18.2%). The main causes of death were heart failure (60% to 45.5%) and noncardiac diseases (46% to 34.9%). One-year survival for patients treated conservatively, with TAVI, and with AVR was 76.3%, 94.9%, and 92.5%, respectively, p <0.001. One-year survival of patients treated conservatively in the absence of significant symptoms was 97.1%. In conclusion, most patients with severe AS are treated conservatively. The outcome in asymptomatic patients managed conservatively was acceptable. Management in tertiary hospitals is associated with valve intervention. One-year survival was similar with both interventional strategies.

Left atrial appendage: anatomy and imaging landmarks pertinent to percutaneous transcatheter occlusion

Percutaneous left atrial appendage (LAA) closure represents a complementary option and effective treatment for patients at risk of thromboembolism, especially in patients for whom it may be difficult to achieve satisfactory anticoagulation control or where anticoagulation treatment is not possible or desirable. Effective and safe transcatheter LAA occlusion requires a detailed knowledge of crucial anatomic landmarks and endocardial morphologic variants of the LAA and its neighbouring structures.1 ,2 w1–w3 Our aim in this article is to provide the basic anatomic information that is important for the interventional cardiologist to know when planning an LAA occlusion procedure.