Secondary Prevention Medical Therapy and Outcomes in Patients With Myocardial Infarction With Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.
RAAS inhibitors
dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)
myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA)
prognosis
secondary prevention medical therapy
statins
β-blockers
Journal
Frontiers in pharmacology
ISSN: 1663-9812
Titre abrégé: Front Pharmacol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101548923
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
07
11
2019
accepted:
10
12
2019
entrez:
22
2
2020
pubmed:
23
2
2020
medline:
23
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is a heterogeneous entity with relevant long-term major cardiovascular events. Several trials have demonstrated that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), β-blocker, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor and statin therapy improve the prognosis in patients with obstructive myocardial infarction (ob-MI). However, evidence on the best medical therapy for secondary prevention in MINOCA patients is lacking. To investigate the effects of secondary prevention treatments at discharge on mid-term outcomes in MINOCA. Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing early coronary angiography between 2016 and 2018 were extracted from a clinical database. The diagnosis of MINOCA was made according to 2016 ESC MINOCA Position Paper criteria. Second-level diagnostic work-up including cardiac magnetic resonance was performed to exclude non-ischemic troponin elevation cause. The relationship between treatments and outcomes was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models. All confirmed MINOCA were followed in our outpatient clinics. The primary end-points were all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization for MI and a composite outcome including all-cause mortality, hospitalization for MI and ischemic stroke (MACE). Out of 1,141 AMI who underwent coronary angiography, 134 were initially diagnosed as MINOCA. Patients with MINOCA were less likely to receive secondary prevention treatments than patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) MI (respectively, 42.1% vs 81.8% for DAPT; 75.5% vs 89.6% for β-blockers; 64.7% vs 80.3% for RAAS inhibitor and 63.9% vs 83% for statins). Based on the diagnostic work-up completed during the first month after discharge, a final sample of 88 patients had confirmed MINOCA. During an average follow-up of 19.35 ± 10.65 months, all-cause mortality occurred in 11 (12.5%) patients, recurrence of MI in 4 (4.5%), and MACE in 15 (17.0%) patients. Patients treated with RAAS inhibitors and statins had a significantly longer survival. On the contrary, no increase in survival was found in patients treated with β-blockers or DAPT. Cox multivariable analysis, including all secondary prevention drugs, showed that only RAAS inhibitors were associated with reduced all cause-mortality and MACE. This prospective study suggests that RAAS inhibitor therapy provides mid-term beneficial effects on outcomes in MINOCA patients; in contrast, dual antiplatelet, β-blocker and statin therapy had no effects on mortality and MACE. These results should be considered preliminary and warrant confirmation from larger studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is a heterogeneous entity with relevant long-term major cardiovascular events. Several trials have demonstrated that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), β-blocker, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor and statin therapy improve the prognosis in patients with obstructive myocardial infarction (ob-MI). However, evidence on the best medical therapy for secondary prevention in MINOCA patients is lacking.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effects of secondary prevention treatments at discharge on mid-term outcomes in MINOCA.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing early coronary angiography between 2016 and 2018 were extracted from a clinical database. The diagnosis of MINOCA was made according to 2016 ESC MINOCA Position Paper criteria. Second-level diagnostic work-up including cardiac magnetic resonance was performed to exclude non-ischemic troponin elevation cause. The relationship between treatments and outcomes was evaluated by using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models. All confirmed MINOCA were followed in our outpatient clinics. The primary end-points were all-cause mortality, re-hospitalization for MI and a composite outcome including all-cause mortality, hospitalization for MI and ischemic stroke (MACE).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Out of 1,141 AMI who underwent coronary angiography, 134 were initially diagnosed as MINOCA. Patients with MINOCA were less likely to receive secondary prevention treatments than patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) MI (respectively, 42.1% vs 81.8% for DAPT; 75.5% vs 89.6% for β-blockers; 64.7% vs 80.3% for RAAS inhibitor and 63.9% vs 83% for statins). Based on the diagnostic work-up completed during the first month after discharge, a final sample of 88 patients had confirmed MINOCA. During an average follow-up of 19.35 ± 10.65 months, all-cause mortality occurred in 11 (12.5%) patients, recurrence of MI in 4 (4.5%), and MACE in 15 (17.0%) patients. Patients treated with RAAS inhibitors and statins had a significantly longer survival. On the contrary, no increase in survival was found in patients treated with β-blockers or DAPT. Cox multivariable analysis, including all secondary prevention drugs, showed that only RAAS inhibitors were associated with reduced all cause-mortality and MACE.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This prospective study suggests that RAAS inhibitor therapy provides mid-term beneficial effects on outcomes in MINOCA patients; in contrast, dual antiplatelet, β-blocker and statin therapy had no effects on mortality and MACE. These results should be considered preliminary and warrant confirmation from larger studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32082147
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2019.01606
pmc: PMC7005107
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1606Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Paolisso, Bergamaschi, Saturi, D'Angelo, Magnani, Toniolo, Stefanizzi, Rinaldi, Bartoli, Angeli, Donati, Rucci, Mattioli, Taglieri, Pizzi and Galiè.
Références
Am J Cardiol. 2013 Jul 15;112(2):150-5
pubmed: 23602693
Am J Cardiol. 2014 May 15;113(10):1628-33
pubmed: 24698468
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Dec 16;5(12):
pubmed: 27986756
Am J Med. 2016 Apr;129(4):398-406
pubmed: 26763754
Heart. 2019 Oct;105(20):1536-1542
pubmed: 31366574
Curr Opin Cardiol. 2005 Nov;20(6):541-6
pubmed: 16234628
Circulation. 2004 Jan 6;109(1):53-8
pubmed: 14699004
Circulation. 2015 Mar 10;131(10):861-70
pubmed: 25587100
Heart Lung Circ. 2018 Feb;27(2):165-174
pubmed: 28408093
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jan 20;364(3):226-35
pubmed: 21247313
J Am Heart Assoc. 2019 Jul 16;8(14):e011990
pubmed: 31284804
N Engl J Med. 2000 Jan 20;342(3):145-53
pubmed: 10639539
J Mol Cell Cardiol. 1998 Aug;30(8):1559-69
pubmed: 9737942
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 7;39(2):91-98
pubmed: 29228159
Int J Cardiol. 2011 Jan 21;146(2):207-12
pubmed: 19664828
Eur Heart J. 2017 Jan 14;38(3):143-153
pubmed: 28158518
Clin Cardiol. 2010 Jan;33(1):36-41
pubmed: 20063300
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988 Jul;12(1):56-62
pubmed: 3379219
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004 Dec 17;325(3):943-51
pubmed: 15541381
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 7;39(2):119-177
pubmed: 28886621
Circulation. 2017 Apr 18;135(16):1481-1489
pubmed: 28179398
Eur Heart J. 2015 Jan 7;36(2):100-11
pubmed: 25179764
Eur J Clin Invest. 2014 Feb;44(2):219-30
pubmed: 24289238
Circulation. 2017 Sep 19;136(12):1155-1166
pubmed: 28923905
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 14;37(3):267-315
pubmed: 26320110
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 14;39(3):213-260
pubmed: 28886622
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2014 Mar;3(1):37-45
pubmed: 24562802
J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2001 May;33(5):969-81
pubmed: 11343419
Circulation. 2019 Apr 30;139(18):e891-e908
pubmed: 30913893
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2011 Oct;12(10):700-8
pubmed: 21738050