4.7 Article

Effect of intravenous TRO40303 as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: MITOCARE study results

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 112-119

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu331

关键词

Cardiac reperfusion injury; STEMI; Mitochondria; CMR; Infarct size; Primary PCI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The MITOCARE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of TRO40303 for the reduction of reperfusion injury in patients undergoing revascularization for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients presenting with STEMI within 6 h of the onset of pain randomly received TRO40303 (n = 83) or placebo (n = 80) via i.v. bolus injection prior to balloon inflation during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in a double-blind manner. The primary endpoint was infarct size expressed as area under the curve (AUC) for creatine kinase (CK) and for troponin I (TnI) over 3 days. Secondary endpoints included measures of infarct size using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and safety outcomes. The median pain-to-balloon time was 180 min for both groups, and the median (mean) door-to-balloon time was 60 (38) min for all sites. Infarct size, as measured by CK and TnI AUCs at 3 days, was not significantly different between treatment groups. There were no significant differences in the CMR-assessed myocardial salvage index (1-infarct size/myocardium at risk) (mean 52 vs. 58% with placebo, P = 0.1000), mean CMR-assessed infarct size (21.9 g vs. 20.0 g, or 17 vs. 15% of LV-mass) or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (46 vs. 48%), or in the mean 30-day echocardiographic LVEF (51.5 vs. 52.2%) between TRO40303 and placebo. A greater number of adjudicated safety events occurred in the TRO40303 group for unexplained reasons. This study in STEMI patients treated with contemporary mechanical revascularization principles did not show any effect of TRO40303 in limiting reperfusion injury of the ischaemic myocardium.

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