Eugene Braunwald

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular dilatation and dysfunction after myocardial infarction are major predictors of death. In experimental and clinical studies, longterm therapy with the angiotensin-converting--enzyme inhibitor captopril attenuated ventricular dilatation and remodeling. We investigated whether captopril could reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after a myocardial infarction. METHODS: Within 3 to 16 days after myocardial infarction, 2231 patients with ejection fractions of 40 percent or less but without overt heart failure or symptoms of myocardial ischemia were randomly assigned to receive doubleblind treatment with either placebo (1116 patients) or captopril (1115 patients) and were followed for an average of 42 months. RESULTS: Mortality from all causes was significantly reduced in the captopril group (228 deaths, or 20 percent) as compared with the placebo group (275 deaths, or 25 percent); the reduction in risk was 19 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 3 to 32 percent; P = 0.019). In addition, the incidence of both fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events was consistently reduced in the captopril group. The reduction in risk was 21 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 35 percent; P = 0.014) for death from cardiovascular causes, 37 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 20 to 50 percent; P less than 0.001) for the development of severe heart failure, 22 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 4 to 37 percent; P = 0.019) for congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization, and 25 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 40 percent; P = 0.015) for recurrent myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction, long-term administration of captopril was associated with an improvement in survival and reduced morbidity and mortality due to major cardiovascular events. These benefits were observed in patients who received thrombolytic therapy, aspirin, or beta-blockers, as well as those who did not, suggesting that treatment with captopril leads to additional improvement in outcome among selected survivors of myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy with statins reduces the risk of cardiovascular events, but the optimal level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is unclear. METHODS: We enrolled 4162 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and compared 40 mg of pravastatin daily (standard therapy) with 80 mg of atorvastatin daily (intensive therapy). The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, documented unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, revascularization (performed at least 30 days after randomization), and stroke. The study was designed to establish the noninferiority of pravastatin as compared with atorvastatin with respect to the time to an end-point event. Follow-up lasted 18 to 36 months (mean, 24). RESULTS: The median LDL cholesterol level achieved during treatment was 95 mg per deciliter (2.46 mmol per liter) in the standard-dose pravastatin group and 62 mg per deciliter (1.60 mmol per liter) in the high-dose atorvastatin group (P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier estimates of the rates of the primary end point at two years were 26.3 percent in the pravastatin group and 22.4 percent in the atorvastatin group, reflecting a 16 percent reduction in the hazard ratio in favor of atorvastatin (P=0.005; 95 percent confidence interval, 5 to 26 percent). The study did not meet the prespecified criterion for equivalence but did identify the superiority of the more intensive regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who have recently had an acute coronary syndrome, an intensive lipid-lowering statin regimen provides greater protection against death or major cardiovascular events than does a standard regimen. These findings indicate that such patients benefit from early and continued lowering of LDL cholesterol to levels substantially below current target levels.

I 1. The initial evaluation of the patient with suspected ACS should include a search for noncoronary causes that could explain the development of symptoms. (Level of Evidence: C)

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization (≥30 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P=0.016). Rates of prespecified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit. (Funded by Merck; IMPROVE-IT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00202878.).

Myocardial ischemia has, for many decades, been viewed as an all-or-none process that causes myocardial necrosis when prolonged and severe, but whose effects are transient when it is brief or mild. In view of the evidence that the ischemic process may "hit, run and stun," perhaps our thinking about the consequences of myocardial ischemia should be expanded. According to this formulation, an ischemic insult not of sufficient severity of duration to produce myocardial necrosis may acutely affect myocardial repolarization and cause angina (hit); but these changes wane rapidly (run), when the balance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand has been reestablished. However, the ischemia may interfere with normal myocardial function, biochemical processes and ultrastructure for prolonged periods (stun). The severity and duration of these postischemic changes depend on the length and intensity of the ischemia, as well as on the condition of the myocardium at the onset of the ischemic episode. Furthermore, it is likely that when the myocardium is repeatedly stunned, it may exhibit chronic postischemic left ventricular dysfunction, an ill-defined condition. If prolonged, chronic postischemic left ventricular dysfunction can progress to myocardial scarring and ischemic cardiomyopathy, it may be important to determine how often it can be ameliorated by permanent improvement of myocardial perfusion by surgical treatment.