Article

Impact of time to therapy and presence of collaterals on the efficacy of FX06 in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: a substudy of the F.I.R.E., the Efficacy of FX06 in the prevention of myocardial reperfusion injury trial.

Department of Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital, Aker and University of Oslo, Norway. <>
EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 3.76). 04/2010; 5(8):946-52. DOI: 10.4244/EIJV5I8A159
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether the efficacy of FX06 was dependent upon the timing of reperfusion therapy or the presence of collaterals in the Efficacy of FX06 in the prevention of myocardial reperfusion injury (F.I.R.E.) trial.
Two hundred and thirty-four (234) patients presenting with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were randomised to FX06 or matching placebo given as an intravenous bolus at reperfusion. Infarct size was assessed at 5-7 days and four months after myocardial infarction by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging determined total late enhancement and necrotic core zone. Patients were stratified according to presentation status (time-to-therapy <3 hours, n=108; time-to-therapy=3-6 hours, n=115) and presence of collaterals (yes, 46; no, 177). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at day 5-7. At four months, we observed statistically significant reductions of both measures of infarct size (0.3% vs. 2.4%, p=0.038; 8.0% vs. 16.0%, p=0.032) in the group given FX06 and presenting early. There was also a statistically significant reduction of total late enhancement zone among patients given FX06 with collaterals (7.3% vs. 15.2%, p=0.043). No differences were evident among late presenters or those without collaterals.
FX06 significantly reduced infarct size at four months in the early presenters and in those with collaterals.

0 Followers
 · 
65 Views
  • Source
    Breast Cancer – Focusing Tumor Microenvironment, Stem Cells and Metastasis, Edited by Mehmet Gunduz, Esra Gunduz, 01/2011: pages 183-208; InTech., ISBN: 978-953-307-1332-4
  • Source
    Breast Cancer - Focusing Tumor Microenvironment, Stem cells and Metastasis, 12/2011; , ISBN: 978-953-307-766-6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is continued interest in the concept of limiting myocardial infarct size with adjunctive agents administered along with reperfusion injury; however, there remains considerable controversy in the literature. The purpose of this article is to review the medical literature on clinical trials performed during the past 3 years that have attempted to reduce myocardial infarct size by administration of adjunctive therapies along with reperfusion therapy. A PubMed-driven literature search revealed a host of clinical trials focusing on the following prominent types of therapies: endogenous conditioning (postconditioning and remote ischemic conditioning); rapid cooling; pharmacological therapy (cyclosporine, abciximab, clopidogrel, tirofiban, erythropoietin, thrombus aspiration, adenosine, glucose-insulin-potassium, statins, antidiabetic agents, FX06, iron chelation, and ranolazine). Although there remains some controversy, quite a few of these studies showed that adjunctive therapy further reduced myocardial infarct size when coupled with reperfusion. Antiplatelet agents are emerging as some of the newest agents that seem to have cardioprotective capabilities. Postconditioning has become a bit more controversial in the clinical literature; remote conditioning, early and rapid cooling, adenosine, and ranolazine are intriguing therapies deserving of larger studies. Certain agents and maneuvers, such as erythropoietin, protein kinase C δ inhibitors, iron chelation, and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, perhaps should be retired. The correct adjunctive therapy administered along with reperfusion has the capability of further reducing myocardial injury during ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.
    Circulation Research 08/2013; 113(4):451-63. DOI:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.112.300627 · 11.09 Impact Factor