Guías clínicas para el manejo del infarto agudo del miocardio con elevación del segmento ST: Grupo de Trabajo de la Sociedad Mexicana de Cardiología y Asociación Nacional de Cardiólogos de México

Drug therapy for hypercholesterolaemia has remained controversial mainly because of insufficient clinical trial evidence for improved survival. The present trial was designed to evaluate the effect of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin on mortality and morbidity in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). 4444 patients with angina pectoris or previous myocardial infarction and serum cholesterol 5.5-8.0 mmol/L on a lipid-lowering diet were randomised to double-blind treatment with simvastatin or placebo. Over the 5.4 years median follow-up period, simvastatin produced mean changes in total cholesterol, low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol of -25%, -35%, and +8%, respectively, with few adverse effects. 256 patients (12%) in the placebo group died, compared with 182 (8%) in the simvastatin group. The relative risk of death in the simvastatin group was 0.70 (95% CI 0.58-0.85, p = 0.0003). The 6-year probabilities of survival in the placebo and simvastatin groups were 87.6% and 91.3%, respectively. There were 189 coronary deaths in the placebo group and 111 in the simvastatin group (relative risk 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.73), while noncardiovascular causes accounted for 49 and 46 deaths, respectively. 622 patients (28%) in the placebo group and 431 (19%) in the simvastatin group had one or more major coronary events. The relative risk was 0.66 (95% CI 0.59-0.75, p < 0.00001), and the respective probabilities of escaping such events were 70.5% and 79.6%. This risk was also significantly reduced in subgroups consisting of women and patients of both sexes aged 60 or more. Other benefits of treatment included a 37% reduction (p < 0.00001) in the risk of undergoing myocardial revascularisation procedures. This study shows that long-term treatment with simvastatin is safe and improves survival in CHD patients.

To determine the effects of antiplatelet therapy among patients at high risk of occlusive vascular events. Collaborative meta-analyses (systematic overviews). Randomised trials of an antiplatelet regimen versus control or of one antiplatelet regimen versus another in high risk patients (with acute or previous vascular disease or some other predisposing condition) from which results were available before September 1997. Trials had to use a method of randomisation that precluded prior knowledge of the next treatment to be allocated and comparisons had to be unconfounded-that is, have study groups that differed only in terms of antiplatelet regimen. 287 studies involving 135 000 patients in comparisons of antiplatelet therapy versus control and 77 000 in comparisons of different antiplatelet regimens. "Serious vascular event": non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death. Overall, among these high risk patients, allocation to antiplatelet therapy reduced the combined outcome of any serious vascular event by about one quarter; non-fatal myocardial infarction was reduced by one third, non-fatal stroke by one quarter, and vascular mortality by one sixth (with no apparent adverse effect on other deaths). Absolute reductions in the risk of having a serious vascular event were 36 (SE 5) per 1000 treated for two years among patients with previous myocardial infarction; 38 (5) per 1000 patients treated for one month among patients with acute myocardial infarction; 36 (6) per 1000 treated for two years among those with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack; 9 (3) per 1000 treated for three weeks among those with acute stroke; and 22 (3) per 1000 treated for two years among other high risk patients (with separately significant results for those with stable angina (P=0.0005), peripheral arterial disease (P=0.004), and atrial fibrillation (P=0.01)). In each of these high risk categories, the absolute benefits substantially outweighed the absolute risks of major extracranial bleeding. Aspirin was the most widely studied antiplatelet drug, with doses of 75-150 mg daily at least as effective as higher daily doses. The effects of doses lower than 75 mg daily were less certain. Clopidogrel reduced serious vascular events by 10% (4%) compared with aspirin, which was similar to the 12% (7%) reduction observed with its analogue ticlopidine. Addition of dipyridamole to aspirin produced no significant further reduction in vascular events compared with aspirin alone. Among patients at high risk of immediate coronary occlusion, short term addition of an intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonist to aspirin prevented a further 20 (4) vascular events per 1000 (P<0.0001) but caused 23 major (but rarely fatal) extracranial bleeds per 1000. Aspirin (or another oral antiplatelet drug) is protective in most types of patient at increased risk of occlusive vascular events, including those with an acute myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke, unstable or stable angina, previous myocardial infarction, stroke or cerebral ischaemia, peripheral arterial disease, or atrial fibrillation. Low dose aspirin (75-150 mg daily) is an effective antiplatelet regimen for long term use, but in acute settings an initial loading dose of at least 150 mg aspirin may be required. Adding a second antiplatelet drug to aspirin may produce additional benefits in some clinical circumstances, but more research into this strategy is needed.

During the past decade, our understanding of the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease (CAD) has undergone a remarkable evolution. We review here how these advances have altered our concepts of and clinical approaches to both the chronic and acute phases of CAD. Previously considered a cholesterol storage disease, we currently view atherosclerosis as an inflammatory disorder. The appreciation of arterial remodeling (compensatory enlargement) has expanded attention beyond stenoses evident by angiography to encompass the biology of nonstenotic plaques. Revascularization effectively relieves ischemia, but we now recognize the need to attend to nonobstructive lesions as well. Aggressive management of modifiable risk factors reduces cardiovascular events and should accompany appropriate revascularization. We now recognize that disruption of plaques that may not produce critical stenoses causes many acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The disrupted plaque represents a "solid-state" stimulus to thrombosis. Alterations in circulating prothrombotic or antifibrinolytic mediators in the "fluid phase" of the blood can also predispose toward ACS. Recent results have established the multiplicity of "high-risk" plaques and the widespread nature of inflammation in patients prone to develop ACS. These findings challenge our traditional view of coronary atherosclerosis as a segmental or localized disease. Thus, treatment of ACS should involve 2 overlapping phases: first, addressing the culprit lesion, and second, aiming at rapid "stabilization" of other plaques that may produce recurrent events. The concept of "interventional cardiology" must expand beyond mechanical revascularization to embrace preventive interventions that forestall future events.