4.7 Article

Early short-term doxycycline therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction to prevent the ominous progression to adverse remodelling: the TIPTOP trial

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 184-191

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht420

关键词

Myocardial infarction; Remodelling; Echocardiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental studies suggest that doxycycline attenuates post-infarction remodelling and exerts protective effects on myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury. However, the effects of the drug in the clinical setting are unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of doxycycline on left ventricular (LV) remodelling in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and LV dysfunction. Open-label, randomized, phase II trial. Immediately after primary percutaneous coronary intervention, patients with STEMI and LV ejection fraction 40 were randomly assigned to doxycycline (100 mg b.i.d. for 7 days) in addition to standard therapy, or to standard care. The echo LV end-diastolic volumes index (LVEDVi) was determined at baseline and 6 months. Tc-99m-Sestamibi-single-photon emission computed tomography infarct size and severity were assessed at 6 months. We calculated a sample size of 110 patients, assuming that doxycycline may reduce the increase in the LVEDVi from baseline to 6 months 50 compared with the standard therapy (statistical power 80 with a type I error 0.05). The 6-month changes in LVEDVi were significant smaller in the doxycycline group than in the control group [0.4 (IQR: 16.0 to 14.2) vs.13.4 (IQR: 7.9 to 29.3); P 0.012], as well as infarct size [5.5 (IQR: 0 to 18.8) vs. 10.4 (IQR: 0.3 to 29.9) P 0.052], and infarct severity [0.53 (IQR: 0.430.62) vs. 0.44 (IQR: 0.290.60), P 0.014], respectively. In patients with acute STEMI and LV dysfunction, doxycycline reduces the adverse LV remodelling for comparable definite myocardial infarct size (NCT00469261).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据