An Individualized Teaching Program for Atherosclerotic Risk Factor Reduction in Patients with Myocardial Infarction

Abstract Background Left ventricular dysfunction after an acute myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with poor outcome. The PARADISE-MI trial is examining whether an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure (HF) in this population. The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence and prognosis of different subsets of post-MI patients in a real-world setting. Additionally, the prognostic importance of some common risk factors used as risk enrichment criteria in the PARADISE-MI trial were specifically examined. Methods In a nationwide myocardial infarction registry (SWEDEHEART), including 87 177 patients with type 1 MI between 2011–2018, 3 subsets of patients were identified in the overall MI cohort (where patients with previous HF were excluded); population 1 (n=27 568 (32%)) with signs of acute HF or an ejection fraction (EF) <50%, population 2 (n=13 038 (15%)) with signs of acute HF or an EF <40%, and population 3 (PARADISE-MI like) (n=11 175 (13%)) with signs of acute HF or an EF <40% and at least one risk factor (Age ≥70, eGFR <60, diabetes mellitus, prior MI, atrial fibrillation, EF <30%, Killip III-IV and STEMI without reperfusion therapy). Results When all MIs, population 1 (HF or EF <50%), 2 (HF or EF <40%) and 3 (HF or EF <40% + additional risk factor (PARADISE-MI like)) were compared, the median (IQR) age increased from 70 (61–79) to 77 (70–84). Also, the proportion of diabetes (22% to 33%), STEMI (38% to 50%), atrial fibrillation (10% to 24%) and Killip-class >2 (1% to 7%) increased. After 3 years of follow-up, the cumulative probability of death or readmission because of heart failure in the overall MI population and in population 1 to 3 was 17.4%, 26.9%, 37.6% and 41.8%, respectively. In population 2, all risk factors were independently associated with death or readmission because of HF (Age ≥70 (HR (95% CI): 1.80 (1.66–1.95)), eGFR <60 (1.62 (1.52–1.74)), diabetes mellitus (1.35 (1.26–1.44)), prior MI (1.16 (1.07–1.25)), atrial fibrillation (1.35 (1.26–1.45)), EF <30% (1.69 (1.58–1.81)), Killip III-IV (1.34 (1.19–1.51)) and STEMI without reperfusion therapy (1.34 (1.21–1.48))) in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. The risk increased with increasing number of risk factors (Figure 1). Conclusion Depending on definition, post MI HF is present in 13–32% of all MI patients and is associated with a high risk of subsequent death or readmission because of HF. The risk increases significantly with every additional risk factor. There is a need to optimize management and improve outcomes for this high risk population. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Novartis

Download Full-text

Incidence and risk factors of delirium after percutaneous coronary intervention in individuals hospitalised for acute myocardial infarction: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044564 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e044564

Author(s):

Kaizhuang Huang ◽

Jiaying Lu ◽

Yaoli Zhu ◽

Tao Cheng ◽

Dahao Du ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Myocardial Infarction ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽

Risk Factor ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Coronary Intervention ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Percutaneous Coronary

IntroductionDelirium in the postoperative period is a wide-reaching problem that affects important clinical outcomes. The incidence and risk factors of delirium in individuals with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been completely determined and no relevant systematic review and meta-analysis of incidence or risk factors exists. Hence, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the incidence and risk factors of delirium among AMI patients undergoing PCI.Methods and analysesWe will undertake a comprehensive literature search among PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Google Scholar from their inception to the search date. Prospective cohort and cross-sectional studies that described the incidence or at least one risk factor of delirium will be eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome will be the incidence of postoperative delirium. The quality of included studies will be assessed using a risk of bias tool for prevalence studies and the Cochrane guidelines. Heterogeneity of the estimates across studies will be assessed. Incidence and risk factors associated with delirium will be extracted. Incidence data will be pooled. Each risk factor reported in the included studies will be recorded together with its statistical significance; narrative and meta-analytical approaches will be employed. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationThis proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on published data, and thus there is no requirement for ethics approval. The study will provide an up to date and accurate incidence and risk factors of delirium after PCI among patients with AMI, which is necessary for future research in this area. The findings of this study will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184388.

Download Full-text

Long-term effects of an intensive prevention program (IPP) after acute myocardial infarction – the IPP Follow-up and Prevention Boost Trial

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.2961 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

H Wienbergen ◽

A Fach ◽

S Meyer ◽

J Schmucker ◽

R Osteresch ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Myocardial Infarction ◽

Risk Factor ◽

Prevention Program ◽

Study Endpoint ◽

Funding Source ◽

Risk Factor Control ◽

One Year

Abstract Background The effects of an intensive prevention program (IPP) for 12 months following 3-week rehabilitation after myocardial infarction (MI) have been proven by the randomized IPP trial. The present study investigates if the effects of IPP persist one year after termination of the program and if a reintervention after >24 months (“prevention boost”) is effective. Methods In the IPP trial patients were recruited during hospitalization for acute MI and randomly assigned to IPP versus usual care (UC) one month after discharge (after 3-week rehabilitation). IPP was coordinated by non-physician prevention assistants and included intensive group education sessions, telephone calls, telemetric and clinical control of risk factors. Primary study endpoint was the IPP Prevention Score, a sum score evaluating six major risk factors. The score ranges from 0 to 15 points, with a score of 15 points indicating best risk factor control. In the present study the effects of IPP were investigated after 24 months – one year after termination of the program. Thereafter, patients of the IPP study arm with at least one insufficiently controlled risk factor were randomly assigned to a 2-months reintervention (“prevention boost”) vs. no reintervention. Results At long-term follow-up after 24 months, 129 patients of the IPP study arm were compared to 136 patients of the UC study arm. IPP was associated with a significantly better risk factor control compared to UC at 24 months (IPP Prevention Score 10.9±2.3 points in the IPP group vs. 9.4±2.3 points in the UC group, p<0.01). However, in the IPP group a decrease of risk factor control was observed at the 24-months visit compared to the 12-months visit at the end of the prevention program (IPP Prevention Score 10.9±2.3 points at 24 months vs. 11.6±2.2 points at 12 months, p<0.05, Figure 1). A 2-months reintervention (“prevention boost”) was effective to improve risk factor control during long-term course: IPP Prevention Score increased from 10.5±2.1 points to 10.7±1.9 points in the reintervention group, while it decreased from 10.5±2.1 points to 9.7±2.1 points in the group without reintervention (p<0.05 between the groups, Figure 1). Conclusions IPP was associated with a better risk factor control compared to UC during 24 months; however, a deterioration of risk factors after termination of IPP suggests that even a 12-months prevention program is not long enough. The effects of a short reintervention after >24 months (“prevention boost”) indicate the need for prevention concepts that are based on repetitive personal contacts during long-term course after coronary events. Figure 1 Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Stiftung Bremer Herzen (Bremen Heart Foundation)

Download Full-text