Safety of Prasugrel Loading Doses in Patients Pre-Loaded With Clopidogrel in the Setting of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Nonrandomized Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the safety of the concurrent administration of a clopidogrel and prasugrel loading dose in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Prasugrel is one of the preferred P2Y12 platelet receptor antagonists for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. The use of prasugrel was evaluated clinically in clopidogrel-naive patients. METHODS: Between September 2009 and October 2012, a total of 2,023 STEMI patients were enrolled in the COMFORTABLE (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI]) and the SPUM-ACS (Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes) studies. Patients receiving a prasugrel loading dose were divided into 2 groups: 1) clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose; and 2) a prasugrel loading dose. The primary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding in hospital at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 2,023 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, 427 (21.1%) received clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose, 447 (22.1%) received a prasugrel loading dose alone, and the remaining received clopidogrel only. At 30 days, the primary safety endpoint was observed in 1.9% of those receiving clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose and 3.4% of those receiving a prasugrel loading dose alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 1.30, p = 0.18). The HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) bleeding score tended to be higher in prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.076). The primary safety endpoint results, however, remained unchanged after adjustment for these differences (clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose vs. prasugrel only; HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.23 to 1.27], p = 0.16). No differences in the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were observed at 30 days (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.62, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: This observational, nonrandomized study of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients suggests that the administration of a loading dose of prasugrel in patients pre-treated with a loading dose of clopidogrel is not associated with an excess of major bleeding events. (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI] [COMFORTABLE]; NCT00962416; and Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes [SPUM-ACS]; NCT01000701).

Cycling Time Trial Is More Altered in Hypobaric than Normobaric Hypoxia

PURPOSE: Slight physiological differences between acute exposure in normobaric hypoxia (NH) and hypobaric hypoxia (HH) have been reported. Taken together, these differences suggest different physiological responses to hypoxic exposure to a simulated altitude (NH) versus a terrestrial altitude (HH). For this purpose, in the present study, we aimed to directly compare the time-trial performance after acute hypoxia exposure (26 h, 3450 min) by the same subjects under three different conditions: NH, HH, and normobaric normoxia (NN). Based on all of the preceding studies examining the differences among these hypoxic conditions, we hypothesized greater performance impairment in HH than in NH. METHODS: The experimental design consisted of three sessions: NN (Sion: FiO2, 20.93), NH (Sion, hypoxic room: FiO2, 13.6%; barometric pressure, 716 mm Hg), and HH (Jungfraujoch: FiO2, 20.93; barometric pressure, 481 mm Hg). The performance was evaluated at the end of each session with a cycle time trial of 250 kJ. RESULTS: The mean time trial duration in NN was significantly shorter than under the two hypoxic conditions (P < 0.001). In addition, the mean duration in NH was significantly shorter than that in HH (P < 0.01). The mean pulse oxygen saturation during the time trial was significantly lower for HH than for NH (P < 0.05), and it was significantly higher in NN than for the two other sessions (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As previously suggested, HH seems to be a more stressful stimulus, and NH and HH should not be used interchangeability when endurance performance is the main objective. The principal factor in this performance difference between hypoxic conditions seemed to be the lower peripheral oxygen saturation in HH at rest, as well as during exercise.

Under what conditions? Therapist and client characteristics moderate the role of change talk in brief motivational intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Client change talk has been proposed as a mechanism of change in motivational interviewing (MI) by mediating the link between therapist MI-consistent behaviors (MICO) and client behavioral outcomes. We tested under what circumstances this mechanism was supported in the context of a clinical trial of brief MI for heavy drinking among nontreatment seeking young men. METHOD: We conducted psycholinguistic coding of 174 sessions using the MI Skill Code 2.1 and derived the frequency of MICO and the strength of change talk (CTS) averaged over the session. CTS was examined as a mediator of the relationship between MICO and a drinking composite score measured at 3-month follow-up, controlling for the composite measure at baseline. Finally, we tested therapist gender and MI experience as well as client readiness to change and alcohol problem severity as moderators of this mediation model. RESULTS: CTS significantly predicted outcome (higher strength related to less drinking), but MICO did not predict CTS. However, CTS mediated the relationship between MICO and drinking outcomes when therapists had more experience in MI and when clients had more severe alcohol problems (i.e., significant conditional indirect effects). CONCLUSIONS: The mechanism hypothesized by MI theory was operative in our brief MI with heavy drinking young men, but only under particular conditions. Our results suggest that attention should be paid to therapist selection, training, and/or supervision until they reach a certain level of competence, and that MI might not be appropriate for nontreatment seeking clients drinking at a lower level of risk. (PsycINFO Database Record

A randomized double-blind control study of early intra-coronary autologous bone marrow cell infusion in acute myocardial infarction: the REGENERATE-AMI clinical trial?.

AIMS: Clinical trials suggest that intracoronary delivery of autologous bone marrow-derived cells (BMCs) 1-7 days post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may improve left ventricular (LV) function. Earlier time points have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the effect of intracoronary autologous BMC on LV function when delivered within 24 h of successful reperfusion therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multi-centre phase II randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial. One hundred patients with anterior AMI and significant regional wall motion abnormality were randomized to receive either intracoronary infusion of BMC or placebo (1:1) within 24 h of successful primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI). The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between baseline and 1 year as determined by advanced cardiac imaging. At 1 year, although LVEF increased compared with baseline in both groups, the between-group difference favouring BMC was small (2.2%; 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.5 to 5.0; P = 0.10). However, there was a significantly greater myocardial salvage index in the BMC-treated group compared with placebo (0.1%; 95% CI: 0.0-0.20; P = 0.048). Major adverse events were rare in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The early infusion of intracoronary BMC following PPCI for patients with AMI and regional wall motion abnormality leads to a small non-significant improvement in LVEF when compared with placebo; however, it may play an important role in infarct remodelling and myocardial salvage. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00765453 and EudraCT 2007-002144-16.