BackgroundChronic inflammation promotes atherosclerosis in cardiovascular disease and is a major prognostic factor for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) is involved in the progress of atherosclerosis and plaque destabilization and plays a pivotal role in the development of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Little is known to date about the clinical impact of MIF in patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods and ResultsIn a pilot study, 286 patients with symptomatic CAD (n = 119 ACS, n = 167 stable CAD) undergoing PCI were consecutively evaluated. 25 healthy volunteers served as control. Expression of MIF was consecutively measured in patients at the time of PCI. Baseline levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), “regulated upon activation, normal T-cell expressed, and secreted” (RANTES) and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) were measured by Bio-Plex Cytokine assay. C-reactive protein (CRP) was determined by Immunoassay. Patients with ACS showed higher plasma levels of MIF compared to patients with stable CAD and control subjects (median 2.85 ng/mL, interquartile range (IQR) 3.52 versus median 1.22 ng/mL, IQR 2.99, versus median 0.1, IQR 0.09, p<0.001). Increased MIF levels were associated with CRP and IL-6 levels and correlated with troponin I (TnI) release (spearman rank coefficient: 0.31, p<0.001). Patients with ACS due to plaque rupture showed significantly higher plasma levels of MIF than patients with flow limiting stenotic lesions (p = 0.002).ConclusionTo our knowledge this is the first study, demonstrating enhanced expression of MIF in ACS. It is associated with established inflammatory markers, correlates with the extent of cardiac necrosis marker release after PCI and is significantly increased in ACS patients with “culprit” lesions. Further attempts should be undertaken to characterize the role of MIF for risk assessment in the setting of ACS.

No abstract

No abstract

This study demonstrates mechanical approximation of both mitral valve annulus edges with improved mitral valve annular coaptation by PMVR using the MitraClip® system, which correlates with residual MR in patients with MR.

BackgroundPercutaneous edge‐to‐edge mitral valve repair (PMVR) has become an established treatment option for mitral regurgitation in patients not eligible for surgical repair. Currently, most procedures are performed under general anesthesia (GA). An increasing number of centers, however, are performing the procedure under deep sedation (DS). Here, we compared patients undergoing PMVR with GA or DS.Methods and ResultsA total of 271 consecutive patients underwent PMVR at our institution between May 2014 and December 2016. Seventy‐two procedures were performed under GA and 199 procedures under DS. We observed that in the DS group, doses of propofol (743±228 mg for GA versus 369±230 mg for DS, P<0.001) and norepinephrine (1.1±1.6 mg for GA versus 0.2±0.3 mg for DS, P<0.001) were significantly lower. Procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and dose area product were significantly higher in the GA group. There was no significant difference between GA and DS with respect to overall bleeding complications, postinterventional pneumonia (4% for GA versus 5% for DS), or C‐reactive protein levels (361±351 nmol/L for GA versus 278±239 nmol/L for DS). Significantly fewer patients with DS needed a postinterventional stay in the intensive care unit (96% for GA versus 19% for DS, P<0.001). Importantly, there was no significant difference between DS and GA regarding intrahospital or 6‐month mortality.Conclusions DS for PMVR is safe and feasible. No disadvantages with respect to procedural outcome or complications in comparison to GA were observed. Applying DS may simplify the PMVR procedure.