齋藤 佑一

BACKGROUND: The lack of standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFs), including hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and smoking, is reportedly associated with poor outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Among patients with no SMuRFs, cancer and chronic systemic inflammatory diseases (CSIDs) may be major etiologies of AMI. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with cancer, CSIDs, and no SMuRFs in AMI. METHODS: This multicenter registry included 2,480 patients with AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were divided into 4 groups: active cancer, CSIDs, no SMuRFs, and those remaining. The coprimary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding events, during hospitalization and after discharge. RESULTS: Of 2,480 patients, 104 (4.2%), 94 (3.8%), and 120 (4.8%) were grouped as cancer, CSIDs, and no SMuRFs, respectively. During the hospitalization, MACE rates were highest in the no SMuRFs group, followed by the cancer, CSIDs, and SMuRFs groups (22.5% vs 15.4% vs 12.8% vs 10.2%; P < 0.001), whereas bleeding risks were highest in the cancer group, followed by the no SMuRFs, CSIDs, and SMuRFs groups (15.4% vs 10.8% vs 7.5% vs 4.9%; P < 0.001). After discharge, the rates of MACE (33.3% vs 22.7% vs 11.3% vs 9.2%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (8.6% vs 6.7% vs 3.8% vs 2.9%; P = 0.01) were higher in the cancer group than in the CSIDs, no SMuRFs, and SMuRFs groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with active cancer, CSIDs, and no SMuRFs differently had worse outcomes after AMI in ischemic and bleeding endpoints during hospitalization and/or after discharge, compared with those with SMuRFs.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a major scenario for the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), particularly when complicated by cardiogenic shock, although the utilization of mechanical circulatory support devices varies widely per hospital. We evaluated the relationship, at the hospital level, between the volume of IABP use and mortality in AMI.Methods and Results: Using a Japanese nationwide administrative database, 26,490 patients with AMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 154 hospitals were included in this study. The primary endpoint was the observed-to-predicted in-hospital mortality ratio. Predicted mortality per patient was calculated using baseline variables and averaged for each hospital. The associations among PCI volume for AMI, observed and predicted in-hospital mortality, and observed and predicted IABP use were assessed per hospital. Of 26,490 patients, 2,959 (11.2%) were treated with IABP and 1,283 (4.8%) died during hospitalization. The annualized number of uses of IABP per hospital in AMI was 4.5. In lower-volume primary PCI centers, IABP was more likely to be underused than expected, and the observed-to-predicted in-hospital mortality ratio was higher than in higher-volume centers. CONCLUSIONS: A lower annual number of IABP use was associated with an increased mortality risk at the hospital level, suggesting that IABP use can be an institutional quality indicator in the setting of AMI.

Standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors (SMuRFs), such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and current smoking, are associated with the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases including acute myocardial infarction (MI). Thus, therapeutic approaches against SMuRFs are important as primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases. In patients with acute MI, however, the prognosis is counterintuitively poor when SMuRFs are lacking. The growing evidence has explored the prevalence, pathophysiology, and prognosis of SMuRF-less patients in acute MI and suggested the potential underlying mechanisms. This review article summarizes the clinical evidence and relevance of the lack of SMuRFs in acute MI.

The diagnosis of vasospastic angina (VSA) according to Japanese guidelines involves an initial intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation test in the left coronary artery (LCA) followed by testing in the right coronary artery (RCA). However, global variations in test protocols often lead to the omission of ACh provocation in the RCA, potentially resulting in the underdiagnosis of VSA. This study assessed the validity of the LCA-only ACh provocation approach for the VSA diagnosis and whether vasoreactivity in the LCA aids in determining further provocation in the RCA. A total of 273 patients who underwent sequential intracoronary ACh provocation testing in the LCA and RCA were included. Patients with a positive ACh provocation test in the LCA were excluded. Relations between vasoreactivity in the LCA and ACh test outcomes (positivity and adverse events) in the RCA were evaluated. In patients with negative ACh test results in the LCA, subsequent ACh testing was positive in the RCA in 23 of 273 (8.4%) patients. In patients with minimal LCA vasoconstriction (<25%), only 3.0% had a positive ACh test in the RCA, whereas the ACh test in the RCA was positive in 13.5% of those with LCA constriction of 25% to 90% (p = 0.002). No major adverse events occurred during ACh testing in the RCA. In conclusion, for the VSA diagnosis, the omission of ACh provocation in the RCA may be clinically acceptable, particularly when vasoconstriction induced by ACh injection was minimal in the LCA. Further studies are needed to define ACh provocation protocols worldwide.