Open Heart最新文献

Background: Despite maximal treatment, heart failure (HF) remains a major clinical challenge. Besides neurohormonal overactivation, myocardial energy homoeostasis is also impaired in HF. Trimetazidine has the potential to restore myocardial energy status by inhibiting fatty acid oxidation, concomitantly enhancing glucose oxidation. Trimetazidine is an interesting adjunct treatment, for it is safe, easy to use and comes at a low cost.

Objective: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate all available clinical evidence on trimetazidine in HF. We searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant studies.

Methods: Out of 213 records, we included 28 studies in the meta-analysis (containing 2552 unique patients), which almost exclusively randomised patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The studies were relatively small (median study size: N=58) and of short duration (mean follow-up: 6 months), with the majority (68%) being open label.

Results: Trimetazidine in HFrEF was found to significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.53) and HF hospitalisations (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.60). In addition, trimetazidine improved (New York Heart Association) functional class (mean difference: -0.44 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.39), 6 min walk distance (mean difference: +109 m (95% CI 105 to 114 m) and quality of life (standardised mean difference: +0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.71). A similar pattern of effects was observed for both ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

Conclusions: Current evidence supports the potential role of trimetazidine in HFrEF, but this is based on multiple smaller trials of varying quality in study design. We recommend a large pragmatic randomised clinical trial to establish the definitive role of trimetazidine in the management of HFrEF.

Objective: Implantable loop recorders (ILRs) are increasingly used for long-term rhythm monitoring after ischaemic and cryptogenic stroke, with the goal of detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) and subsequent initiation of oral anticoagulation to reduce risk of adverse clinical outcomes. There is a need to determine the effectiveness of different rhythm monitoring strategies in this context.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of individuals with commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance in Optum Labs Data Warehouse who had incident ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke and no prior cardiovascular implantable electronic device from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2021. Patients were stratified by rhythm monitoring strategy: ILR, long-term continuous external cardiac monitor (>48 hours to 30 days) or Holter monitor (≤48 hours). The primary outcome was risk-adjusted all-cause mortality at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included new diagnosis of AF and oral anticoagulation, bleeding, and costs.

Results: Among 48 901 patients with ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke, 9235 received an ILR, 29 103 long-term continuous external monitor and 10 563 Holter monitor only. Mean age was 69.9 (SD 11.9) years and 53.5% were female. During the 12-month follow-up period, patients who received ILRs compared with those who received long-term continuous external monitors had a higher odds of new diagnosis of AF and oral anticoagulant initiation (adjusted OR 2.27, 95% CI 2.09 to 2.48). Compared with patients who received long-term continuous external monitors, those who received ILRs had similar 12-month mortality (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12), with approximately $13 000 higher costs at baseline (including monitor cost) and $2500 higher costs during 12-month follow-up.

Conclusions: In this large real-world study of patients with ischaemic or cryptogenic stroke, ILR placement resulted in more diagnosis of AF and initiation of oral anticoagulation, but no difference in mortality compared with long-term continuous external monitors.