Prognostic impact of treatment patterns of in-hospital heart failure on clinical outcomes after myocardial infarction.

Prognostic impact of patterns of in-hospital heart failure on clinical outcomes after myocardial infarction

Prevalence and Prognostic Implications of Worsening Renal Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Long-term β-blocker therapy and clinical outcomes after acute myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure: nationwide cohort study.

Prognostic effect of discontinuing renin–angiotensin–aldosterone-system-inhibitor (RAASi) for patients with heart failure (HF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) whose left ventricular (LV) systolic function was restored during follow-up is unknown. To investigate the outcome after discontinuing RAASi in post-AMI HF patients with restored LV ejection fraction (EF). Of 13,104 consecutive patients from the nationwide, multicenter, and prospective Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction-National Institutes of Health (KAMIR-NIH) registry, HF patients with baseline LVEF < 50% that was restored to ≥ 50% at 12-month follow-up were selected. Primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, spontaneous MI, or rehospitalization for HF at 36-month after index procedure. Of 726 post-AMI HF patients with restored LVEF, 544 maintained RAASi (Maintain-RAASi) beyond 12-month, 108 stopped RAASi (Stop-RAASi), and 74 did not use RAASi (RAASi-Not-Used) at baseline and follow-up. Systemic hemodynamics and cardiac workloads were similar among groups at baseline and during follow-up. Stop-RAASi group showed elevated NT-proBNP than Maintain-RAASi group at 36-month. Stop-RAASi group showed significantly higher risk of primary outcome than Maintain-RAASi group (11.4% vs. 5.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HRadjust] 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09–4.46, P = 0.028), mainly driven by increased risk of all-cause death. The rate of primary outcome was similar between Stop-RAASi and RAASi-Not-Used group (11.4% vs. 12.1%; HRadjust 1.18 [0.47–2.99], P = 0.725). In post-AMI HF patients with restored LV systolic function, RAASi discontinuation was associated with significantly increased risk of all-cause death, MI, or rehospitalization for HF. Maintaining RAASi will be necessary for post-AMI HF patients, even after LVEF is restored.

Administration of Pigment Epithelium-Derived Factor Inhibits Left Ventricular Remodeling and Improves Cardiac Function in Rats with Acute Myocardial Infarction

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), elevated natriuretic peptide (NP) concentrations are reportedly associated with worse clinical outcomes. This study evaluated the prognostic value of NP concentrations and in-hospital heart failure (HF) events after AMI. The present bicenter registry included 600 patients with AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. HF was evaluated at 3 different time points after AMI: on admission, during hospitalization, and at the short-term follow-up at 1 month. When HF was present at each time point, 1 point was assigned to the "HF time points" (HFTP) risk scoring system; possible total scores on this system ranged from 0 to 3. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and HF rehospitalization after discharge. Among the 600 patients who survived to discharge, the primary outcome occurred in 69 (11.5%) during a mean follow-up period of 488 days. HF on admission, during hospitalization, and at the short-term follow-up were all significantly associated with subsequent clinical outcomes. Higher scores on the HFTP scoring system were related to an increased risk of the primary endpoint. Multivariable analysis indicated scores of 2 and 3 were independently associated with outcome events in a stepwise manner. Among patients with AMI, HF evaluation at different time points was useful in stratifying risks of mortality and HF rehospitalization after discharge.

The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was first introduced into clinical practice in 1968.1 Early experimental and clinical trials suggested that intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation could provide circulatory assistance to a failing left ventricle.2,3 Counterpulsation—balloon inflation during diastole and deflation in systole—augments the intrinsic Windkessel effect, whereby potential energy stored in the aortic root during systole is converted to kinetic energy with the elastic recoil of the aortic root. Counterpulsation leads to a decline in afterload, a reduction in cardiac work, and therefore myocardial oxygen requirements of the ventricle. Augmentation of diastolic pressure when the balloon is fully inflated together with reduction in left ventricular (LV) filling pressures contribute to improved coronary perfusion (Figures 1 and 2).4 This proposed improvement in myocardial energetics has been further supported by a significant reduction in systemic lactate.5 These physiological enhancements are thought to be of particular benefit after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), supported by animal studies, which have shown a reduction in infarct size when counterpulsation is used.6,7 Figure 1. Coronary perfusion. Coronary flow is predominantly diastolic and further enhanced by counterpulsation, which augments diastolic blood flow and thus coronary perfusion. In addition, aortic recoil during diastole further improves efficiency of the left ventricle. Figure 2. Systemic arterial pressure waveform on introduction of intra-aortic balloon pump–assisted diastolic augmentation. The intra-aortic balloon pump inflates at the dicrotic notch, leading to peak-augmented diastolic pressure. As the balloon deflates, assisted end diastolic pressure is seen to be lower than unassisted end diastolic pressure and assisted systolic pressure is lower than unassisted systolic pressure. Peak diastolic augmentation should be greater than the unassisted systolic pressure and both assisted pressures should be less than the unassisted pressures. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation was initially used as a means of supporting patients undergoing surgical revascularization. Percutaneous delivery …

Blood Pressure at 6 Months After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Outcomes at 2 Years: The Perils Associated With Excessively Low Blood Pressures

Usefulness of Combined White Blood Cell Count and Plasma Glucose for Predicting In-Hospital Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Whether a sex difference exists in long-term cardiovascular (CV) outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is worth exploration. This study is sought to investigate the relationships among sex, age, and the long-term prognosis after AMI. This population-based retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database to investigate the sex differences in in-hospital and long-term CV outcomes in patients with AMI. We enrolled patients who were first diagnosed with AMI from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2013. The outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, CV death, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal heart failure, and AMI recurrence during hospitalization and 5-year follow up. The CV outcomes were also analyzed by age stratification. Overall, 201921 patients with AMI were analyzed; 68.72% were men and 31.28% were women, with mean ages of 65.34±14.12 and 73.05±12.22years, respectively. Major adverse cardiac events during hospitalization and up to 5years were consistently greater in women than in men. Multivariable regression analysis revealed no sex difference existed in long-term all-cause and CV mortality. Men of all age groups consistently showed higher risk of both short- and long-term recurrence of AMI. Nonetheless, the female sex still independently predicted increased risk of non-fatal stroke and heart failure from hospitalization until 3-year follow up. Women with AMI had poorer short-term and long-term outcomes. The sex differences in long-term all-cause and CV death disappear after multivariate analysis. Nonetheless, female AMI patients independently predicted higher risk of stroke and heart failure from hospitalization until a 3-year follow-up. To better understand the pathophysiology of female patients with AMI and develop more effective management, more studies in this field are necessary in the future.

The development of heart failure (HF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a prognostically important event, even in the context of early percutaneous coronary revascularization. The identification of patients at risk of developing HF remains an inexact science; even natriuretic peptides fail to provide accurate prognostication, in part, because of the fluctuations in plasma levels early after AMI.1 In the search for novel biomarkers, much interest has centered on circulating microRNAs (miRNAs), primarily focusing on cardiac-enriched miRNAs as diagnostic markers of AMI.2 Until recently, the prognostic value of circulating miRNAs in patients with AMI was poorly addressed. Matsumoto et al3 addressed the relevant question of whether circulating miRNAs may be used as predictors of prognosis after AMI. Plasma level of p53-responsive miR-192, miR-34a, and miR-194 were elevated in AMI patients who developed HF within the following year. In addition, miR-194 and miR-34a correlated with 1-year left ventricular …

Highlights From the Circulation Family of Journals.

The relative impact of components of high residual risk on the long-term prognosis after AMI

Recently, we have been working on enhancing the effectiveness of treatment for acute heart failure (HF) through team-based care. This study was designed to assess the benefits of this initiative by quantifying the prognostic impact on HF patients receiving treatment at our hospital. We identified 1977 consecutive HF patients (mean age 78.3 ± 11.9years) being discharged from our hospital between February 2015 and December 2018, divided them by admission year, and tracked changes over time, with 2015 as a reference. The postdischarge clinical outcome measures were defined as a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization for HF, all-cause death, and rehospitalization for HF. The risk of a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization for HF was lower in 2017 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 0.91; p = 0.005) and 2018 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.99; p = 0.045) than in 2015, and that of all-cause death was lower in 2017 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 0.98; p = 0.04) and 2018 (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.43 to 0.85; p = 0.004) than in 2015, but that of rehospitalization for HF was not significantly different through the study period. The mortality rate decreased at the end of the study period, but the rate of rehospitalization for HF did not. The benefits of team-based care were difficult to evaluate by quantification.

Despite advancements in modern medicine, the treatment of acute heart failure (AHF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains challenging. Milrinone is effective in the treatment of chronic congestive heart failure, but its safety and efficacy in patients with AHF after AMI have not been systematically evaluated. This meta-analysis was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of milrinone in patients with AHF after AMI. We used a pre-designed protocol to search electronic databases for randomized trials assessing milrinone for the treatment of AHF after AMI. Data were abstracted from relevant studies. Heterogeneity was assessed qualitatively using a Q test and quantified using the I(2) statistic. Pooled risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using fixed-effects models unless substantial heterogeneity was observed (I(2) ≥ 50% and heterogeneity p ≤ 0.1). Four randomized trials met the inclusion criteria. However, there were no significant differences in deaths, blood pressure, premature ventricular contractions, gastrointestinal reactions, or ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation (all p > 0.05) between control group and milrinone treatment group. Pooled estimates showed that milrinone significantly increased the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 5.69; 95% CI 4.27 to 7.10; p < 0.00001) and cardiac output (MD 0.35, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.56; p = 0.002, I(2) = 24%). While studies to date are few and limited by small sample sizes and poor quality, they suggest that treatment with milrinone may be safe and effective for patients with AHF after AMI. However, this meta-analysis did not show that milrinone could improve prognosis or the survival rate.