| 1. |
- Erlinge, David, et al.
(author)
-
Therapeutic Hypothermia for the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction-Combined Analysis of the RAPID MI-ICE and the CHILL-MI Trials
- 2015
-
In: Therapeutic Hypothermia and Temperature Management. - : Mary Ann Liebert Inc. - 2153-7658 .- 2153-7933. ; 5:2, s. 77-84
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In the randomized rapid intravascular cooling in myocardial infarction as adjunctive to percutaneous coronary intervention (RAPID MI-ICE) and rapid endovascular catheter core cooling combined with cold saline as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction CHILL-MI studies, hypothermia was rapidly induced in conscious patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) by a combination of cold saline and endovascular cooling. Twenty patients in RAPID MI-ICE and 120 in CHILL-MI with large STEMIs, scheduled for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within <6 hours after symptom onset were randomized to hypothermia induced by rapid infusion of 600-2000mL cold saline combined with endovascular cooling or standard of care. Hypothermia was initiated before PCI and continued for 1-3 hours after reperfusion aiming at a target temperature of 33 degrees C. The primary endpoint was myocardial infarct size (IS) as a percentage of myocardium at risk (IS/MaR) assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at 4 +/- 2 days. Patients randomized to hypothermia treatment achieved a mean core body temperature of 34.7 degrees C before reperfusion. Although significance was not achieved in CHILL-MI, in the pooled analysis IS/MaR was reduced in the hypothermia group, relative reduction (RR) 15% (40.5, 28.0-57.6 vs. 46.6, 36.8-63.8, p=0.046, median, interquartile range [IQR]). IS/MaR was predominantly reduced in early anterior STEMI (0-4h) in the hypothermia group, RR=31% (40.5, 28.8-51.9 vs. 59.0, 45.0-67.8, p=0.01, median, IQR). There was no mortality in either group. The incidence of heart failure was reduced in the hypothermia group (2 vs. 11, p=0.009). Patients with large MaR (>30% of the left ventricle) exhibited significantly reduced IS/MaR in the hypothermia group (40.5, 27.0-57.6 vs. 55.1, 41.1-64.4, median, IQR; hypothermia n=42 vs. control n=37, p=0.03), while patients with MaR<30% did not show effect of hypothermia (35.8, 28.3-57.5 vs. 38.4, 27.4-59.7, median, IQR; hypothermia n=15 vs. control n=19, p=0.50). The prespecified pooled analysis of RAPID MI-ICE and CHILL-MI indicates a reduction of myocardial IS and reduction in heart failure by 1-3 hours with endovascular cooling in association with primary PCI of acute STEMI predominantly in patients with large area of myocardium at risk. (ClinicalTrials.gov id NCT00417638 and NCT01379261).
|
|
| 2. |
- Rubertsson, Sten, et al.
(author)
-
Per-Protocol and Pre-Defined population analysis of the LINC study
- 2015
-
In: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 96, s. 92-99
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To perform two predefined sub-group analyses within the LINC study and evaluate if the results were supportive of the previous reported intention to treat (ITT) analysis.METHODS: Predefined subgroup analyses from the previously published LINC study were performed. The Per-Protocol population (PPP) included the randomized patients included in the ITT-population but excluding those with violated inclusion or exclusion criteria and those that did not get the actual treatment to which the patient was randomized. In the Pre-Defined population (PDP) analyses patients were also excluded if the dispatch time to ambulance arrival at the address exceeded 12min, there was a non-witnessed cardiac arrest, or if it was not possible to determine whether the arrest was witnessed or not, and those cases where LUCAS was not brought to the scene at the first instance.RESULTS: After exclusion from the 2589 patients within the ITT-population, the Per-Protocol analysis was performed in 2370 patients and the Pre-Defined analysis within 1133 patients. There was no significant difference in 4-h survival of patients between the mechanical-CPR group and the manual-CPR group in the Per-Protocol population; 279 of 1172 patients (23.8%) versus 281 of 1198 patients (23.5%) (risk difference -0.35%, 95% C.I. -3.1 to 3.8, p=0.85) or in the Pre-Defined population; 176 of 567 patients (31.0%) versus 192 of 566 patients (33.9%) (risk difference -2.88%, 95% C.I. -8.3 to 2.6, p=0.31). There was no difference in any of the second outcome variables analyzed in the Pre-Protocol or Pre-Defined populations.CONCLUSIONS: The results from these predefined sub-group analyses of the LINC study population did not show any difference in 4h survival or in secondary outcome variables between patients treated with mechanical-CPR or manual-CPR. This is consistent with the previously published ITT analysis.
|
|
