Pharmaco-invasive therapy: Early implementation of statins and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors after acute coronary syndrome.

Elevated LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) plays a major role in atheroma formation and inflammation. Medical therapy to lower elevated LDL-C is the cornerstone for reducing the progression of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Statin therapy, and more recently, other drugs such as proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, have proven efficacy in long-term lowering of LDL-C and therefore diminish cardiovascular risk. During an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a systemic inflammatory response can destabilize other non-culprit atherosclerotic plaques. Patients with these vulnerable plaques are at high risk of experiencing recurrent cardiovascular events in the first few years post-ACS. Initiating intensive LDL-C lowering therapy in these patients with statins or PCSK9 inhibitors can be beneficial via several pathways. High-intensity statin therapy can reduce inflammation by directly lowering LDL-C, but also through its pleiotropic effects. PCSK9 inhibitors can directly lower LDL-C to recommended guideline thresholds, and could have additional effects on inflammation and plaque stability. We discuss the potential role of early implementation of statins combined with PCSK9 inhibitors to influence these cascades and to mediate the associated cardiovascular risk, over and above the well-known long-term beneficial effects of chronic LDL-C lowering.

Patients with left bundle branch block pattern and high cardiac risk myocardial SPECT: does the current management suffice?

INTRODUCTION: Myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) is frequently used for cardiovascular risk stratification. The significance of MPS in patients with abnormal electrical ventricular activation is often questionable. This review assesses the value of MPS for risk stratification of patients with intrinsic left bundle branch block or that due to right ventricular apical pacing. METHODS: We reviewed the literature by a search of the MEDLINE database (January 1980 to September 2010). The terms prognosis or prognostic value were combined with SPECT and LBBB or pacing or pacemakers. MPS was categorised as low and high risk according to the original definitions. RESULTS: We identified 11 studies suitable for review. A low-risk MPS is associated with a low risk of cardiac events whereas high-risk MPS carries a 4.8-fold increased risk, 95% CI [3.2 - 7.2] (p < 0.0001). Despite secondary prevention and an improved medical and interventional care, these figures have hardly changed over time. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A low-risk MPS permits a policy of watchful waiting whereas a high-risk MPS requires further analysis and treatment. The persistent high cardiac death and acute myocardial infarction rate after a high-risk MPS suggest that the current management of these patients does not suffice and needs reconsideration.