Reperfusion Injury: How Can We Reduce It by Pre-, Per-, and Postconditioning

While early coronary reperfusion via primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is established as the most efficacious therapy for minimizing infarct size (IS) in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), the restoration of blood flow also introduces myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI), leading to cardiomyocyte death. Among diverse methods, ischemic conditioning (IC), achieved through repetitive cycles of ischemia and reperfusion, has emerged as the most promising method to mitigate IRI. IC can be performed by applying the protective stimulus directly to the affected myocardium or indirectly to non-affected tissue, which is known as remote ischemic conditioning (RIC). In clinical practice, RIC is often applied by serial inflations and deflations of a blood pressure cuff on a limb. Despite encouraging preclinical studies, as well as clinical studies demonstrating reductions in enzymatic IS and myocardial injury on imaging, the observed impact on clinical outcome has been disappointing so far. Nevertheless, previous studies indicate a potential benefit of IC in high-risk STEMI patients. Additional research is needed to evaluate the impact of IC in such high-risk cohorts. The objective of this review is to summarize the pathophysiological background and preclinical and clinical data of IRI reduction by IC.

Long-term outcomes of ischemic post-conditioning primary PCI and conventional primary PCI in acute STEMI: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding ischemic postconditioning during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared conventional PCI alone has yielded conflicting results.

METHODS

Online databases comparing use of ischemic postconditioning percutaneous coronary intervention (ICP-PPCI) in STEMI patients with conventional PPCI were selected. Mortality, heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were evaluated. The primary outcome was composite of HF, MI, and mortality. Pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed using random-effects model.

RESULTS

Eight studies consisting of 2,566 patients (ICP-PPCI n = 1,228; PPCI n = 1,278) were included. The mean age for PPCI group was 61.38 ± 7.86 years (51% men) and for PCI 59.83 ± 8.94 years (47% men). There were no differences in outcome between ICP-PPCI and PPCI in terms of HF (RR 0.87 95% CI0.51-1.48; p = 0.29), MI (RR 1.28, 95%CI0.74-2.20; p = 0.20), mortality (RR 0.93, 95%CI0.64-1.34; p = 0.58), and MACE (RR 0.89, 95%CI0.74-1.07; p = 0.22). The results for composite event for the ICP-PPCI and PPIC procedures, at ≥1 year follow-up duration, were comparable (RR 1.00 95%CI0.82-1.22; p = 1).

CONCLUSION

Ischemic postconditioning post percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI patients has no long-term benefits over conventional PCI.

Comparison of infarction size, complete ST-segment resolution incidence, mortality and re-infarction and target vessel revascularization between remote ischemic conditioning and ischemic postconditioning in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Introduction

Due to higher morbidity and mortality, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) causes many public health problems.

Aim

To observe effects of remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) and ischemic postconditioning (IPC) on patients diagnosed as STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI).

Material and methods

This meta-analysis was conducted using indirect comparison by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA). We conducted searches by utilizing PubMed and the other databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that described IPC or RIC treated patients diagnosed with STEMI during processes of pPCI. Enzymatic infarct size and infarction size were evaluated and cardiac events were assessed during the follow-up.

Results

Pooled results showed that lower enzymatic infarction size was associated with the RIC group compared to the IPC group (IPC vs. RIC: standardized mean difference (SMD) = 1.126; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.756–1.677). Compared with IPC, RIC significantly reduced infarction size, which was assessed using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) (SMD = 1.113; 95% CI: 0.674–1.837). We noted a potential toward greater complete ST-segment resolution in RIC patients compared with IPC patients (odds ratio (OR) = 0.821; 95% CI: 0.166–4.051). No significant difference existed in all-cause mortality (OR = 2.211; 95% CI: 0.845–5.784), Target vessel revascularization (TVR) (OR = 0.045; 95% CI: 0.001–.662) or re-infarction (OR = 1.763; 95% CI: 0.741–4.193).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggested RIC was correlated with significantly smaller infarction size compared to IPC. No significant superiority between RIC and IPC has been observed in this study on cSTR incidence, mortality and re-infarction or TVR.

Myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury and cardioprotection in perspective

Despite the increasing use and success of interventional coronary reperfusion strategies, morbidity and mortality from acute myocardial infarction are still substantial. Myocardial infarct size is a major determinant of prognosis in these patients. Therefore, cardioprotective strategies aim to reduce infarct size. However, a perplexing gap exists between the many preclinical studies reporting infarct size reduction with mechanical and pharmacological interventions and the poor translation into better clinical outcomes in patients. This Review revisits the pathophysiology of myocardial ischaemia-reperfusion injury, including the role of autophagy and forms of cell death such as necrosis, apoptosis, necroptosis and pyroptosis. Other cellular compartments in addition to cardiomyocytes are addressed, notably the coronary microcirculation. Preclinical and clinical research developments in mechanical and pharmacological approaches to induce cardioprotection, and their signal transduction pathways, are discussed. Additive cardioprotective interventions are advocated. For clinical translation into treatments for patients with acute myocardial infarction, who typically are of advanced age, have comorbidities and are receiving several medications, not only infarct size reduction but also attenuation of coronary microvascular obstruction, as well as longer-term targets including infarct repair and reverse remodelling, must be considered to improve patient outcomes. Future clinical trials must focus on patients who really need adjunct cardioprotection, that is, those with severe haemodynamic alterations.

Effects of ischaemic postconditioning on outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of ischaemic postconditioning (IPC) therapy on hard clinical endpoints in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of IPC on the outcomes of patients with STEMI.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant articles published prior to May 1, 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised trials comparing conventional PPCI to PPCI combined with IPC in STEMI patients were included. The primary endpoint was heart failure. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), including cardiac death, heart failure and MI. The Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook 4.2 was used to assess the risk of bias.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Relevant data were extracted by two independent investigators. We derived pooled risk ratios (RRs) with random effects models. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Ten studies that had enrolled 3137 patients were included. PPCI combined with IPC failed to reduce heart failure (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.26, p=0.47; absolute risk: 3.64% in the IPC group and 4.11% in the PPCI only group), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.27, p=0.68; absolute risk: 5.07% in the IPC group and 5.27% in the PPCI onlygroup), MACE (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.83 to 1.32, p=0.69; absolute risk: 9.37% in the IPC group and 8.93% in the PPCI only group), cardiac death (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.93, p=0.24; absolute risk: 4.28% in the IPC group and 3.25% in the PPCI only group) and MI (RR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.38 to 3.12, p=0.88; absolute risk: 3.61% in the IPC group and 3.44% in the PPCI only group).

CONCLUSIONS

IPC combined with PPCI does not reduce heart failure, MACE and all-cause mortality compared with traditional PPCI in patients with STEMI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017063959.

The pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction and strategies of protection beyond reperfusion: a continual challenge

The incidence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has decreased over the last two decades in developed countries, but mortality from STEMI despite widespread access to reperfusion therapy is still substantial as is the development of heart failure, particularly among an expanding older population. In developing countries, the incidence of STEMI is increasing and interventional reperfusion is often not available. We here review the pathophysiology of acute myocardial infarction and reperfusion, notably the temporal and spatial evolution of ischaemic and reperfusion injury, the different modes of cell death, and the resulting coronary microvascular dysfunction. We then go on to briefly characterize the cardioprotective phenomena of ischaemic preconditioning, ischaemic postconditioning, and remote ischaemic conditioning and their underlying signal transduction pathways. We discuss in detail the attempts to translate conditioning strategies and drug therapy into the clinical setting. Most attempts have failed so far to reduce infarct size and improve clinical outcomes in STEMI patients, and we discuss potential reasons for such failure. Currently, it appears that remote ischaemic conditioning and a few drugs (atrial natriuretic peptide, exenatide, metoprolol, and esmolol) reduce infarct size, but studies with clinical outcome as primary endpoint are still underway.

New and revisited approaches to preserving the reperfused myocardium

Early coronary artery reperfusion improves outcomes for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), but morbidity and mortality after STEMI remain unacceptably high. The primary deficits seen in these patients include inadequate pump function, owing to rapid infarction of muscle in the first few hours of treatment, and adverse remodelling of the heart in the months that follow. Given that attempts to further reduce myocardial infarct size beyond early reperfusion in clinical trials have so far been disappointing, effective therapies are still needed to protect the reperfused myocardium. In this Review, we discuss several approaches to preserving the reperfused heart, such as therapies that target the mechanisms involved in mitochondrial bioenergetics, pyroptosis, and autophagy, as well as treatments that harness the cardioprotective properties of inhaled anaesthetic agents. We also discuss potential therapies focused on correcting the no-reflow phenomenon and its effect on healing and adverse left ventricular remodelling.

Ischemic postconditioning during primary percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Although some studies have shown potential benefit for ischemic postconditioning (IPoC) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in improving surrogate markers of reperfusion and infarction size, the benefit of this approach on clinical outcomes remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared IPoC versus conventional treatment during primary PCI. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RR) were calculated for different clinical and surrogate outcomes. The main outcome of this analysis was all-cause mortality. A total of 25 trials involving 3,619 patients were included in the analysis. At a mean follow up of 14 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.6-19.4 months), the incidence of all-cause mortality was 4.9% [95% CI 3.8-6.0%] in the IPoC group versus 3.8% [95% CI 1.9-5.7%] in the control group (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68-1.24, P = 0.74). The risk of reinfarction (2.7% [95% CI 1.1-4.3%] vs. 2.3% [0.6-4.0%]; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.62-2.68, P = 0.72), heart failure (3.6% [95% CI 2.0-5.1%] vs. 5.7% [95% CI 3.3-8.2%]; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.58-1.06, P = 0.24), target vessel revascularization (3.2% [95% CI 1.7-4.7%] vs. 2.4% [95% CI 1.4-3.3%]; RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.90-2.20, P = 0.20), and stent thrombosis (2.4% [95% CI 1.1-3.8%] vs. 1.8% [95% CI 0.5-3.2%]); RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.60-3.70, P = 0.40) was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IPoC does not appear to reduce the risk of clinical adverse events in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Time to Give Up on Cardioprotection?

The mortality from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains significant, and the prevalence of post-myocardial infarction heart failure is increasing. Therefore, cardioprotection beyond timely reperfusion is needed. Conditioning procedures are the most powerful cardioprotective interventions in animal experiments. However, ischemic preconditioning cannot be used to reduce infarct size in patients with AMI because its occurrence is not predictable; several studies in patients undergoing surgical coronary revascularization report reduced release of creatine kinase and troponin. Ischemic postconditioning reduces infarct size in most, but not all, studies in patients undergoing interventional reperfusion of AMI, but may require direct stenting and exclusion of patients with >6 hours of symptom onset to protect. Remote ischemic conditioning reduces infarct size in patients undergoing interventional reperfusion of AMI, elective percutaneous or surgical coronary revascularization, and other cardiovascular surgery in many, but not in all, studies. Adequate dose-finding phase II studies do not exist. There are only 2 phase III trials, both on remote ischemic conditioning in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery, both with neutral results in terms of infarct size and clinical outcome, but also both with major problems in trial design. We discuss the difficulties in translation of cardioprotection from animal experiments and proof-of-concept trials to clinical practice. Given that most studies on ischemic postconditioning and all studies on remote ischemic preconditioning in patients with AMI reported reduced infarct size, it would be premature to give up on cardioprotection.