Rationale and design of the AngeLmed for Early Recognition and Treatment of STEMI trial: a randomized, prospective clinical investigation.

Significant improvements in door-to-balloon times have led to a reduction in mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; however, mean symptom-to-door times remain at 2 to 3 hours. An intracardiac electrogram monitoring device may be beneficial in high-risk patients by alerting them to rapidly progressive ST-segment changes indicative of acute coronary occlusion. The Cardiosaver and DETECT phase I clinical studies demonstrated the safety, feasibility, and potential benefit of using an intracardiac electrogram monitoring device to alert the patient to seek medical attention. The goal of the randomized, prospective ALERTS Trial (Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT00781118) is to evaluate the efficacy of an implantable monitoring device (IMD) in reducing the composite of either cardiac or unexplained death, new Q-wave myocardial infarction, or symptom-to-door time of >2 hours for confirmed thrombotic events. The IMD alerts the patient in real time when ST-segment deviation from a personalized baseline exceeds the trigger threshold. The trial is designed to enroll high-risk post-acute coronary syndrome patients or patients with previous multivessel coronary artery bypass surgery. All patients have the IMD implanted, with 1:1 unblinded randomization to the alerting feature being either turned on versus turned off for the first 6 months. Randomization occurs at the first follow-up visit, 7 to 14 days after the implantation of the IMD. Subjects then return for follow-up visits at months 1, 3, and 6 and thereafter every 6 months until closure of the investigational device exemption. Subjects who cannot be implanted successfully or who have the device explanted are removed from the study and followed up for a minimum of 30 days post-procedure. If a subject experiences a device-related complication and/or adverse experience, the subject is followed up until resolution or until the condition becomes stable and no further change is anticipated.

Angiographic validation of the American College of Cardiology Foundation-the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategies study.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to compare angiographic interpretation of coronary arteriograms by sites in community practice versus those made by a centralized angiographic core laboratory. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population consisted of 2013 American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) records with 2- and 3- vessel coronary disease from 54 sites in 2004 to 2007. The primary analysis compared Registry (NCDR)-defined 2- and 3-vessel disease versus those from an angiographic core laboratory analysis. Vessel-level kappa coefficients suggested moderate agreement between NCDR and core laboratory analysis, ranging from kappa=0.39 (95% confidence intervals, 0.32-0.45) for the left anterior descending artery to kappa=0.59 (95% confidence intervals, 0.55-0.64) for the right coronary artery. Overall, 6.3% (n=127 out of 2013) of those patients identified with multivessel disease at NCDR sites had had 0- or 1-vessel disease by core laboratory reading. There was no directional bias with regard to overcall, that is, 12.3% of cases read as 3-vessel disease by the sites were read as <3-vessel disease by the core laboratory, and 13.9% of core laboratory 3-vessel cases were read as <3-vessel by the sites. For a subset of patients with left main coronary disease, registry overcall was not linked to increased rates of mortality or myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: There was only modest agreement between angiographic readings in clinical practice and those from an independent core laboratory. Further study will be needed because the implications for patient management are uncertain.

Rationale and design of the EMBRACE STEMI study: a phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of intravenous Bendavia on reperfusion injury in patients treated with standard therapy including primary percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Although significant efforts have been made to improve ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) outcomes by reducing symptom-onset-to-reperfusion times, strategies to decrease the clinical impact of ischemic reperfusion injury have demonstrated limited success. Bendavia, an intravenously administered mitochondrial targeting peptide, has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size and attenuate coronary no-reflow in experimental modelswhen given before reperfusion. DESIGN: The EMBRACE STEMI study is a phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolling 300 patients with a first-time anterior STEMI and an occluded proximal or mid-left anterior descending artery undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 4 hours of symptom onset. Patients will be randomized to receive either Bendavia at 0.05 mg/kg per hour or an identically appearing placebo administered as an intravenous infusion at 60 mL/h. The primary end point is infarct size measured by the area under the creatine kinase-MB enzyme curve calculated from measurements from the central clinical chemistry laboratory obtained over the initial 72 hours after the primary PCI procedure, and the major secondary end point is infarct size calculated by the volume of infarcted myocardium (late contrast gadolinium enhancement) on the day 4±1 cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. SUMMARY: EMBRACE-STEMI is testing the hypothesis that Bendavia, in conjunction with standard-of-care therapy, is superior to placebo for the reduction of myocardial infarction size among patients with first time, acute, anterior wall STEMI who undergo successful reperfusion with primary PCI and stenting.

Admission hyperglycemia and acute myocardial infarction: outcomes and potential therapies for diabetics and nondiabetics.

Hyperglycemia, in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients, has a significant negative impact on the morbidity and mortality of patients presenting with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Contemporary evidence indicates that persistent hyperglycemia after initial hospital admission continues to exert negative effects on AMI patients. There have been a number of studies demonstrating the benefit of tight glucose control in patients presenting with AMI, but a lack of convincing clinical data has led to loose guidelines and poor implementation of glucose targets for this group of patients. The CREATE-ECLA study, which hypothesized that a fixed high dose of glucose, insulin, and potassium (GIK) would change myocardial substrate utilization from free fatty acids to glucose and therefore protect ischemic myocardium, failed to demonstrate improved clinical outcomes in AMI patients. Studies that specifically investigated intensive insulin therapy, including DIGAMI-2 and HI-5, also failed to improve clinical outcomes such as mortality. There are a number of reasons that these trials may have fallen short, including the inability to reach glucose targets and inadequate power. There is now a need for a large placebo-controlled randomized trial with an adequate sample size and adherence to glucose targets in order to establish the benefit of treating hyperglycemia in patients presenting with AMI.