SummaryBackgroundRemote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months.MethodsWe did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed.FindingsBetween Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91–1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed.InterpretationRemote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden.

Summary.  Objectives: Monocytes include several subsets with different and sometimes divergent roles in immunity, atherogenesis and reparative processes. Objectives: We aimed to perform detailed immunophenotypic and functional characterization of human monocyte subsets. Patients/methods: Analysis of surface markers of blood and bone marrow monocyte subsets and functional characterization of blood monocyte subsets in healthy volunteers was performed using flow cytometry. Results: In the present study, we show the presence of three subsets which could be unequivocally distinguished by surface expression of CD14, CD16 and CCR2 as CD14+CD16−CCR2+(Mon1), CD14+CD16+CCR2+(Mon2) and CD14lowCD16+CCR2−(Mon3) subsets. In comparison with the classic Mon1, the Mon2 subset had the highest expression of Tie2, CXCR4, CD163, CD115, receptors to inter‐cellular adhesion molecule‐1 (ICAM‐1), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and the highest surface levels of apolipoprotein B and ferritin. In contrast, Mon3 had maximal expression of VCAM‐1 receptors and CD204. The Mon2 and Mon3 subsets had significantly lower activity of the NFκB pathway than Mon1. Mon1 and Mon2 had similar phagocytic activity, which was significantly higher compared with Mon3. All three subsets were present in bone marrow, although the relative proportion of Mon2 in bone marrow was about 2.5‐fold higher compared with that seen in blood. Significant differences in cytokine production in response to endotoxin stimulation were observed between the three monocyte subsets. Conclusion: Given their immunophenotypic similarity, the newly characterized Mon2 population may represent the previously reported pluripotent progenitor/pro‐angiogenic monocytes.

Background— Cross-talk between monocytes and platelets is reflected by the formation of monocyte-platelet aggregates (MPAs). It is not known whether MPAs are affected in heart failure (HF), and we examined differences in patients with acute HF (AHF), stable HF (SHF), stable coronary artery disease (CAD) without HF, and healthy controls (HCs). Methods and Results— MPAs were analyzed by flow cytometry for the 3 monocyte subsets (CD14++CD16-CCR2+ [Mon1], CD14++CD16+CCR2+ [Mon2] and CD14+CD16++CCR2– [Mon3]) in patients with AHF (n=51), SHF (n=42), stable CAD (n=44), and HCs (n=40). Counts of total MPA and MPAs associated with Mon1 and Mon2 were significantly higher in AHF compared with SHF, CAD, and HCs ( P <0.001 for all). The proportion of Mon1 aggregated with platelets was increased in AHF compared with SHF ( P =0.033), CAD ( P <0.001), and HCs ( P <0.001). A higher percentage of Mon3 aggregated with platelets was also seen in AHF compared with SHF ( P =0.012) and HCs ( P <0.001) but not compared with CAD ( P =0.647). MPAs associated with Mon2 were significantly lower in patients who experienced adverse clinical outcomes of death or rehospitalization compared with those who remained free of events ( P =0.03). Mon2 count remained an independent negative predictor of combined death and rehospitalization after adjustment for age, left ventricular ejection fraction, creatinine, and brain natriuretic peptide (hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.34–0.98]; P =0.043). Conclusions— MPA formation in patients with both acute and stable HF is increased and seems to be confined to monocytes from Mon1 and Mon2 subsets. MPAs associated with Mon2 seem to be negatively predictive of a worse prognosis in AHF.