Why the study?
Does intravenous BQ-123 reduce ventricular tachycardia and/or late potentials in patients with posterior-wall STE-ACS undergoing primary PCI?
Does intravenous BQ-123 reduce ventricular tachycardia and/or late potentials in patients with posterior-wall STE-ACS undergoing primary PCI?
Short-term administration of the endothelin A receptor blocker BQ-123 prior to primary PCI in STE-ACS was safe but showed no significant antiarrhythmic efficacy, though limited by small sample size.
Short-term BQ-123 shows no antiarrhythmic benefit after STE-ACS PCI; leaves open endothelin A blockade efficacy in larger trials.
AIMS: Ventricular arrhythmias are common after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Endothelin (ET) is a mediator of microvascular dysfunction and cardiac remodeling with arrhythmogenic potential. The aim of this study was to assess safety and feasibility of selective ET-A receptor blockade in ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (STE-ACS) within a larger randomized trial. MAIN METHODS: Patients with posterior-wall STE-ACS were randomly assigned to receive intravenous BQ-123 at 400 nmol/min or placebo over 60 min, starting immediately prior to primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Twenty-four hour Holter recordings were performed during hospitalization for STE-ACS and after 6-8 weeks. The predefined primary endpoint was the documentation of ventricular tachycardia and/or late potentials at follow-up. KEY FINDINGS: There was no significant difference in the predefined primary endpoint at 45 (33-62) days (0/16 (0%) in BQ-123 treated patients vs. 1/14 (7%) in the placebo group, p=0.465). At 2 (1-3) days, an increase in the total number of supraventricular extrasystoles (SVES)/24 h in patients randomized to BQ-123 (45 (17-165) beats vs. 11 (5-72) beats in placebo treated patients, p=0.025) occurred. This increase was also observed at 45 days (105 (37-216) beats vs. 11 (3-98) beats in placebo treated patients, p=0.037). There was no significant difference regarding other rhythmologic secondary endpoints between the two groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Based on the analysis of long-term ECG data, short-term administration of BQ-123 after AMI was safe. Because of the small sample size, no firm conclusion regarding antiarrhythmic efficacy can be drawn.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adlbrecht et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: