Active clinical trials for "Infarction"

STEMI patients with multivessel disease will be randomized to complete PCI versus PCI driven by high risk criteria of plaques evaluated with OCT

To assess the effect of FDY-5301 on cardiovascular mortality and acute heart failure events in subjects with an anterior STEMI undergoing pPCI.

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is an event of myocardial necrosis caused by myocardial ischemia. Although the incidence and economic burden of AMI has declined in high-income countries, the incidence rate of AMI in China has increased dramatically over the past several decades. Initial medical therapy combined with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is currently the most important advance in restoring coronary perfusion. Timely reperfusion therapy may halt the progress of necrosis and preserve viable tissue; however, it can also induce myocardial injury and cause cardiomyocyte death, a phenomenon called myocardial ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI), which can increase final myocardial infarct size by up to 50%. Unfortunately, there is no effective intervention for preventing IRI to date, though an improved understanding of the pathophysiology of IRI has led to the suggestion of several innovative therapeutic strategies with the potential for reducing unintended negative side effects of reperfusion therapy in AMI patients. Whether there is a therapeutic intervention that can effectively and safely reduce myocardial infarct size and cardiac mortality has been intensely explored over the years. Against this backdrop, a phenomenon called remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) has long been discussed as a potential approach to address the above issues. The purpose of present study is to investigate the efficacy of perioperative remote ischemic conditioning delivered at individual timepoints (e.g., pre-, per- and post-PCI) on myocardial injury in patients with AMI.

The primary objective of the trial is to evaluate the efficacy of early invasive strategy for STEMI patients within 24-48h of symptom onset.

Perforating artery territorial infarction (PAI) refers to a single ischaemic lesion <20 mm in a single perforating arterial territory and branch atheromatous disease (BAD) is a important etiological factor. BAD related infarction accounts for 10%-15% ischemic cerebral infarction and is closely related to early neurological deterioration (END). Among patients with BAD, dual antiplatelet (clopidogrel plus aspirin) did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. The primary purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of tirofiban combined with aspirin versus placebo combined with aspirin in reducing the risk of recurrence and progression of stroke at 90 days in patients with acute penetrating artery territory infarction.

Heart attacks are caused by the sudden formation of a clot inside a diseased coronary artery which reduces blood flow beyond the blockage site. During conventional treatment of the blockage with what is known as a stent; a stainless steel tub that keeps the artery open, the clot that has formed is disrupted and is pushed further down leading to damage in smaller blood vessels supplying the heart muscle. This additional damage can lead to long-term heart muscle damage influencing recovery and wellbeing. The original concept that was tested to prevent this 'clot shower' was that of a suction device to withdraw the clot before stenting. However, this approach has not translated to patient benefit. Amongst the reasons put forward for the inefficacy of the suction device was that it does not remove the entire clot as it does not interact with it. A new device that physically interacts with the clot and traps it before pulling it out - the stent retriever - is now routinely used in stroke therapy to remove clots in the arteries supplying the brain. This device has been successfully used as a last resort to remove clots in a small number of heart attacks. The investigators hypothesize that stent retriever therapy will be more effective in clot removal than the current standard of care; suction or stenting. To study this, the investigators propose the RETRIEVE-AMI randomised controlled trial.

This is a Phase 2, multicenter, randomized, parallel, 3-arm, placebo-controlled study to assess efficacy and safety of CDR132L in patients with reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) (≤ 45%) after myocardial infarction (MI). This study consists of a screening period (to occur at least 3 days after MI diagnosis), a 6-month double-blind period, and a 6-month extension period with the End of Study (EOS) Visit at Day 360/Month 12. Two dosages of CDR132L will be tested against placebo on their effects on patients, who just had a heart attack in addition to standard care. The aim of the study is to show that CDR132L is safe and effective to improve heart failure in such patients.

Non-commercial, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a secure, central, interactive, web-based response system, to intervention FCM or placebo arm. Time of observation 12 months [12 main study + 3 years follow up in substudy B]. Primary Study Objective: Primary: Evaluation of the effect of i.v. FCM treatment compared with placebo on the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, the risk of heart failure events (HFE*) (number of events and time to first event) during the 12-month follow-up and the change in quality of life (QoL) assessed using EQ-5D during the 8-month follow-up in patients with recent AMI and ID (with an implementation of a win ratio approach in a hierarchical descending order). *HFE: unplanned hospitalization for HF (including unplanned visit at emergency department due to HF), ambulatory significant intensification of diuretic therapy (either starting i.v. loop diuretic or more than doubling oral loop diuretic dose or de novo initiation of oral loop diuretic therapy due to HF signs/symptoms).

Dual antiplatelet agent therapy (DAPT) is essential in treating PCI patients. DAPT can minimize thrombotic adverse events that occur not only at the stented lesion, but along the whole coronary tree. However, DAPT has a critical side effect of increasing bleeding complications. Addressing the clinical imperatives of lowering bleeding while preserving ischemic benefit requires therapeutic strategies that decouple thrombotic from hemorrhagic risk. Recently, the ARC definition of high bleeding risk (HBR) has been published, so as to stress the need of optimal DAPT treatment in HBR patients. Due to the definitely higher bleeding risk in HBR patients, it would be rather more straight forward to titrate the optimal DAPT duration in these patients. In this line, many studies are in progress on HBR patients, with an ultra-short DAPT duration (i.e. Leaders free, Onyx ONE, Master DAPT, Xience 28, Xience 90, Evolve short DAPT trial, etc.). As a counteract to the definition of HBR, there is a concept of LBR. Due to the relatively vague ischemic/bleeding risk in LBR patients, balancing ischemic and bleeding complications post-PCI is more difficult in LBR patients, which may be a more important dilemma for clinicians. In this regards, limited evidence exists on the optimal duration of DAPT in LBR patients. Various previous studies that have evaluated the optimal DAPT in PCI populations, did not have the concept of HBR or LBR, making interpretation difficult. Therefore, this study is planning to compare the efficacy and safety of different DAPT durations, in patients stratified according to the ARB-HBR definition.

The purpose of this trial is to assess the safety of AMI-DC treatment. The participants who voluntarily sign the consent form will be screened according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria then allocated either to the experimental group (drug therapy and AMI-DC therapy) or to the control group (drug therapy only). Both the experimental group and the control group are treated with standard medical therapy after PCI. The experimental group will be hospitalized for 4-5 days after 1st injection, and 1 day after 2nd injection. Vital signs are collected after 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours and 4 hours after the 1st and 2nd injections and the subjects will be monitored 24 hours for safety assessment. The identical examination will also be performed in the control group and the results will be collected.