Key result
Ischemic postconditioning did not reduce overall infarct size in relation to myocardium at risk or improve left ventricular ejection fraction at 12 months compared to primary PCI alone in patients with STEMI.
Why the study?
Does ischemic postconditioning reduce infarct size and improve left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with a first STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
RCT (n=68)
Evaluator-blinded (CMR images analyzed blinded)
Randomized in blocks of eight, stratified for LAD and non-LAD occlusions
No
Does ischemic postconditioning reduce infarct size and improve left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with a first STEMI undergoing primary PCI?
Absolute Event Rate: 31% vs 31%
Ischemic postconditioning adds no benefit to primary PCI in STEMI; confirms no reduction in infarct size or LVEF improvement at 12 months.
BACKGROUND: Ischemic postconditioning (PostC), reperfusion in brief cycles, is known to induce short-term reduction in infarct size in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), especially among those with large myocardium at risk (MaR). The aim of the present study was to investigate the long-term effect of PostC on infarct size and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with a first STEMI were randomised to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n = 35) or PCI followed by PostC (n = 33). MaR was determined as abnormally contracting segments on left ventricular angiogram. Cardiac magnetic resonance was performed at 3 and 12 months for the determination of infarct size and LVEF. RESULTS: Overall there was no difference in infarct size expressed in percentage of MaR between patients randomised to the control (31%; 23, 41) and PostC (31%; 23, 43) groups at 12 months. Likewise there was no difference in LVEF between control (49%; 41, 55) and PostC (52%; 45, 55). In contrast, patients in the PostC group with MaR in the upper quartile had a significantly smaller infarct size (29%; 18, 38) than those in the control group (40%; 34, 48; p < 0.05) at 12 months. In these patients LVEF was higher in the PostC (47%; 43, 50) compared to the control group (38%; 34, 42; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this long-term follow-up study PostC did not reduce infarct size in relation to MaR or improved LVEF in the overall study population. However, the present data suggest that PostC exerts long-term beneficial effects in patients with large MaR thereby extending previously published short-term observations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Karolinska Clinical Trial Registration (http://www.kctr.se). Unique identifier: CT20080014.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sörensson et al. (2013) conducted an RCT in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=68). Ischemic postconditioning (PostC) vs. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone was evaluated on Infarct size expressed as a percentage of myocardium at risk (MaR) at 12 months. Ischemic postconditioning did not reduce overall infarct size in relation to myocardium at risk or improve left ventricular ejection fraction at 12 months compared to primary PCI alone in patients with STEMI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: