Huber, Kurt

Background The PINNACLE FLX (Protection Against Embolism for Non‐valvular AF [Atrial Fibrillation] Patients: Investigational Device Evaluation of the Watchman FLX LAA [Left Atrial Appendage] Closure Technology) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of a next‐generation left atrial appendage closure device (WATCHMAN FLX; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). At 1 year, the study met the primary end points of safety and anatomical efficacy/appendage closure. This final report of the PINNACLE FLX trial includes the prespecified secondary end point of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism at 2 years, also making it the first report of 2‐year outcomes with this next‐generation left atrial appendage closure device. Methods and Results Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc score ≥2 (men) or ≥3 (women), with an appropriate rationale for left atrial appendage closure, were enrolled to receive the left atrial appendage closure device at 29 US centers. Adverse events were assessed by an independent clinical events committee, and imaging was assessed by independent core laboratories. Among 395 implanted patients (36% women; mean age, 74 years; CHA 2 DS 2 ‐VASc, 4.2±1.5), the secondary efficacy end point of 2‐year ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was met, with an absolute rate of 3.4% (annualized rate, 1.7%) and an upper 1‐sided 95% confidence bound of 5.3%, which was superior to the 8.7% performance goal. Two‐year rates of adverse events were as follows: 9.3% all‐cause mortality, 5.5% cardiovascular death, 3.4% all stroke, and 10.1% major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5). There were no additional systemic embolisms, device embolizations, pericardial effusions, or symptomatic device‐related thrombi after 1 year. Conclusions The secondary end point of 2‐year stroke or systemic embolism was met at 3.4%. In these final results of the PINNACLE FLX trial, the next‐generation WATCHMAN FLX device demonstrated favorable safety and efficacy outcomes.

Abstract The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased awareness that severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) may have profound effects on the cardiovascular system. COVID-19 often affects patients with pre-existing cardiac disease, and may trigger acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and acute heart failure (AHF). However, as COVID-19 is primarily a respiratory infectious disease, there remain substantial uncertainty and controversy whether and how cardiovascular biomarkers should be used in patients with suspected COVID-19. To help clinicians understand the possible value as well as the most appropriate interpretation of cardiovascular biomarkers in COVID-19, it is important to highlight that recent findings regarding the prognostic role of cardiovascular biomarkers in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are similar to those obtained in studies for pneumonia and ARDS in general. Cardiovascular biomarkers reflecting pathophysiological processes involved in COVID-19/pneumonia and its complications have a role evaluating disease severity, cardiac involvement, and risk of death in COVID-19 as well as in pneumonias caused by other pathogens. First, cardiomyocyte injury, as quantified by cardiac troponin concentrations, and haemodynamic cardiac stress, as quantified by natriuretic peptide concentrations, may occur in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. The level of those biomarkers correlates with disease severity and mortality. Interpretation of cardiac troponin and natriuretic peptide concentrations as quantitative variables may aid in risk stratification in COVID-19/pneumonia and also will ensure that these biomarkers maintain high diagnostic accuracy for AMI and AHF. Second, activated coagulation as quantified by D-dimers seems more prominent in COVID-19 as in other pneumonias. Due to the central role of endothelitis and VTE in COVID-19, serial measurements of D-dimers may help physicians in the selection of patients for VTE imaging and the intensification of the level of anticoagulation from prophylactic to slightly higher or even therapeutic doses.

Abstract The formation of a thrombus in an epicardial artery may result in an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Despite major advances in acute treatment using network approaches to allocate patients to timely reperfusion and optimal antithrombotic treatment, patients remain at high risk for thrombotic complications. Ongoing activation of the coagulation system as well as thrombin-mediated platelet activation may both play a crucial role in this context. Whether measurement of circulating biomarkers of coagulation and fibrinolysis could be useful for risk stratification in secondary prevention is currently not fully understood. In addition, measurement of such biomarkers could be helpful to identify thrombus formation as the leading mechanism for AMI. The introduction of biomarkers of myocardial injury such as high-sensitivity cardiac troponins made rule-out of AMI even more precise. However, elevated markers of myocardial injury cannot provide proof of a type 1 AMI, let alone thrombus formation. The combined measurement of markers of myocardial injury with biomarkers reflecting ongoing thrombus formation might be helpful for the fast and correct diagnosis of an atherothrombotic type 1 AMI. This position paper gives an overview of the current knowledge and possible role of biomarkers of coagulation and fibrinolysis for the diagnosis of AMI, risk stratification, and individualized treatment strategies in patients with AMI.

Objectives Compare the effect of apixaban and warfarin on coagulation and primary haemostasis biomarkers in atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods The biomarker substudy from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation trial included 4850 patients with AF randomised to treatment with apixaban or warfarin. Sixty per cent of patients used vitamin K antagonist (VKA) within 7 days before randomisation. Prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2), D-dimer, soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L) and von Willebrand factor (vWF) antigen were analysed at randomisation and after 2 months of study treatment. Results In patients not on VKA treatment at randomisation, F1+2 and D-dimer levels were decreased by 25% and 23%, respectively, with apixaban, and by 59% and 38%, respectively, with warfarin (p<0.0001 for treatment differences for both). In patients on VKA at randomisation, F1+2 and D-dimer levels increased by 41% and 10%, respectively, with apixaban and decreased by 37% and 11%, respectively, with warfarin (p<0.0001 for treatment differences for both). sCD40L levels were slightly increased at 2 months, regardless of VKA or randomised treatment. Apixaban and warfarin also both reduced vWF antigen regardless of VKA treatment. The efficacy (stroke) and safety (bleeding) of apixaban compared with warfarin was similar irrespectively of biomarker levels at 2 months. Conclusions Treatment with apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with AF was associated with less reduction in thrombin generation and fibrin turnover. This effect of apixaban could contribute to the clinical results where apixaban was superior to warfarin both in stroke prevention and in reducing bleeding risk. Trial registration number NCT00412984.

Background: The efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in clinical trials of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or elective percutaneous coronary intervention is controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse whether remote ischaemic conditioning reduces myocardial damage in those patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception until December 2017 for randomised clinical trials evaluating remote ischaemic conditioning versus a control group. Two independent reviewers extracted data of 23 trials (2118 patients with STEMI; 2048 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention) which were meta-analysed using random-effects models. Results: Remote ischaemic conditioning reduced infarct size in STEMI patients when assessed by imaging (mean difference of infarct size as percentage of left ventricle −2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.37 to −0.48; P=0.01; I2=44%; n=925) or biomarkers related to myocardial injury (peak values of cardiac biomarker release reported as standardised mean difference −0.19, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.02; P=0.03; I2=58%; n=1483) and increased myocardial salvage index (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; P=0.02; I2=49%; n= 636). Left ventricular ejection fraction was increased when assessed during the first days after STEMI (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.83; P=0.02; I2=28%; n=1192). Remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on biomarker values after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.30; P=0.59). Conclusions: Despite a statistically significant reduction of myocardial damage in STEMI patients, the magnitude of the reduction was small and a significant impact on clinical events is unlikely. With respect to elective percutaneous coronary intervention, remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on myocardial injury and its use is not supported by our analysis.

Cardiac troponin I and cardiac troponin T are nowadays the criterion biomarkers for the laboratory diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction due to their very high sensitivities and specificities for myocardial injury. However, still many aspects of their degradation, tissue release and elimination from the human circulation are incompletely understood. Myocardial injury may be caused by a variety of different mechanisms, for example, myocardial ischaemia, inflammatory and immunological processes, trauma, drugs and toxins, and myocardial necrosis is preceded by a substantial reversible prelethal phase. Recent experimental data in a pig model of myocardial ischaemia demonstrated cardiac troponin release into the circulation from apoptotic cardiomyocytes as an alternative explanation for clinical situations with increased cardiac troponin without any other evidence for myocardial necrosis. However, the comparably lower sensitivities of all currently available imaging modalities, including cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of particularly non-focal myocardial necrosis in patients, has to be considered for cardiac troponin test result interpretation in clinical settings without any other evidence for myocardial necrosis apart from increased cardiac troponin concentrations as well.