CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Refractory Angina: From Pathophysiology to New Therapeutic Nonpharmacological Technologies Percutaneous Intervention for Concurrent Chronic Total Occlusions in Patients With STEMI: The EXPLORE Trial Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry Application of High-Sensitivity Troponin in Suspected Myocardial Infarction Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Open sesame technique in percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction Myocardial Infarction Risk Stratification With a Single Measurement of High-Sensitivity Troponin I The Potential Use of the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance to Guide Stratification of Patients for Adjunctive Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction Invasive Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Shock Team Approach in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock Requiring Short-Term Mechanical Circulatory Support: A Proof of Concept

Original ResearchVolume 75, Issue 12, March 2020

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Intravenous Statin Administration During Myocardial Infarction Compared With Oral Post-Infarct Administration

G Mendieta, S Ben-Aicha, M Gutiérrez et al. Keywords: cardioprotection; MI; pigs; statin; timing

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Beyond lipid-lowering, statins exert cardioprotective effects. High-dose statin treatment seems to reduce cardiovascular complications in high-risk patients. The ideal timing and administration regime remain unknown.

 

OBJECTIVES - This study compared the cardioprotective effects of intravenous statin administration during myocardial infarction (MI) with oral administration immediately post-MI.

 

METHODS - Hypercholesterolemic pigs underwent MI induction (90 min of ischemia) and were kept for 42 days. Animals were distributed in 3 arms (A): A1 received an intravenous bolus of atorvastatin during MI; A2 received an intravenous bolus of vehicle during MI; and A3 received oral atorvastatin within 2 h post-MI. A1 and A3 remained on daily oral atorvastatin for the following 42 days. Cardiac magnetic resonance analysis (days 3 and 42 post-MI) and molecular/histological studies were performed.

 

RESULTS - At day 3, A1 showed a 10% reduction in infarct size compared with A3 and A2 and a 50% increase in myocardial salvage. At day 42, both A1 and A3 showed a significant decrease in scar size versus A2; however, A1 showed a further 24% reduction versus A3. Functional analyses revealed improved systolic performance in A1 compared with A2 and less wall motion abnormalities in the jeopardized myocardium versus both groups at day 42. A1 showed enhanced collagen content and AMP-activated protein kinase activation in the scar, increased vessel density in the penumbra, higher tumor necrosis factor α plasma levels and lower peripheral blood mononuclear cell activation versus both groups.

 

CONCLUSIONS - Intravenous administration of atorvastatin during MI limits cardiac damage, improves cardiac function, and mitigates remodeling to a larger extent than when administered orally shortly after reperfusion. This therapeutic approach deserves to be investigated in ST-segment elevation MI patients.