| Literature DB >> 33495853 |
Bruno García Del Blanco1,2, Imanol Otaegui1,2, José F Rodríguez-Palomares1,2, Antoni Bayés-Genis2,3, Eduard Fernández-Nofrerías2,3, Victoria Vilalta Del Olmo2,3, Xavier Carrillo2,3, Borja Ibáñez2,4,5, Fernando Worner6, Juan Casanova6, Eva Pueo6, Jose R González-Juanatey7, Javier López-Pais7, Alfredo Bardají8, Gil Bonet8, Mónica Fuertes8, Antonio Rodríguez-Sinovas9,10, Marisol Ruiz-Meana1,2, Javier Inserte1,2, Ignasi Barba1,2, Sandra Gómez-Talavera2,4,5, Gerard Martí1,2, Bernat Serra1,2, Neus Bellera1,2, Manuel Ojeda-Ramos1,2, Hug Cuellar11, Filipa Valente1,2, Maria Ángeles Carmona1,2, Elisabet Miró-Casas1,2, Josep R Marsal1,12, Antonia Sambola1,2, Rosa M Lidón1,2, Jordi Bañeras1,2, Jaime Elízaga2,13, Ferran Padilla14, José A Barrabés1,2, Derek J Hausenloy15,16,17,18,19, Ignacio Ferreira-González20,21, David García-Dorado1,2.
Abstract
Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) and the GLP-1 analog exenatide activate different cardioprotective pathways and may have additive effects on infarct size (IS). Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy of RIC as compared with sham procedure, and of exenatide, as compared with placebo, and the interaction between both, to reduce IS in humans. We designed a two-by-two factorial, randomized controlled, blinded, multicenter, clinical trial. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 6 h of symptoms were randomized to RIC or sham procedure and exenatide or matching placebo. The primary outcome was IS measured by late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance performed 3-7 days after PPCI. The secondary outcomes were myocardial salvage index, transmurality index, left ventricular ejection fraction and relative microvascular obstruction volume. A total of 378 patients were randomly allocated, and after applying exclusion criteria, 222 patients were available for analysis. There were no significant interactions between the two randomization factors on the primary or secondary outcomes. IS was similar between groups for the RIC (24 ± 11.8% in the RIC group vs 23.7 ± 10.9% in the sham group, P = 0.827) and the exenatide hypotheses (25.1 ± 11.5% in the exenatide group vs 22.5 ± 10.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.092). There were no effects with either RIC or exenatide on the secondary outcomes. Unexpected adverse events or side effects of RIC and exenatide were not observed. In conclusion, neither RIC nor exenatide, or its combination, were able to reduce IS in STEMI patients when administered as an adjunct to PPCI.Entities:
Keywords: Exenatide; Primary percutaneous coronary intervention; Remote ischemic conditioning; ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33495853 DOI: 10.1007/s00395-021-00842-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Basic Res Cardiol ISSN: 0300-8428 Impact factor: 17.165