Key result
Immunological and cellular-based treatments show promising results for reducing infarct burden and recovering cardiac function following acute coronary syndrome.
This review highlights the potential of novel anti-inflammatory, immunological, and cellular-based therapies to reduce infarct burden and improve cardiac recovery in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Novel anti-inflammatory agents in ACS remain investigational; leaves open optimal targets, timing, and patient selection for RCTs.
INTRODUCTION: Ischemic heart disease is the most common cause of death worldwide. Despite improvements in interventional and pharmacological therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS), the risk of recurrent myocardial ischemia and mortality early after ACS remains high. Our improved understanding of the increasing role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of ACS and its relationship to atherosclerotic plaque rupture and thrombosis has led to the development of more potent anti-thrombotic and novel anti-inflammatory therapies for the treatment of ACS. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the authors explore: the developing pharmacotherapy in the field of cardiology for ACS; antiplatelet agents (both further development of classical modalities together with pioneering agents); evolving use of anticoagulation in its treatment, and exploration in the use of novel anti-inflammatories and biological agents. EXPERT OPINION: Data from trials involving the use of immunological and cellular-based treatments show promising results and herald further possible reduction in infarct burden in ACS alongside the possibility of recovery in cardiac function following infarction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
O’Connor et al. (2015) conducted a review in Acute coronary syndrome. Investigational new drugs was evaluated. Immunological and cellular-based treatments show promising results for reducing infarct burden and recovering cardiac function following acute coronary syndrome.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: