Serelaxin is a recombinant form of human relaxin-2, a vasodilator hormone that contributes to cardiovascular and renal adaptations during pregnancy. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with serelaxin may result in relief of symptoms and in better outcomes in patients with acute heart failure. In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial, we enrolled patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure and had dyspnea, vascular congestion on chest radiography, increased plasma concentrations of natriuretic peptides, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and a systolic blood pressure of at least 125 mm Hg, and we randomly assigned them within 16 hours after presentation to receive either a 48-hour intravenous infusion of serelaxin (30 μg per kilogram of body weight per day) or placebo, in addition to standard care. The two primary end points were death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days and worsening heart failure at 5 days. A total of 6545 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At day 180, death from cardiovascular causes had occurred in 285 of the 3274 patients (8.7%) in the serelaxin group and in 290 of the 3271 patients (8.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.15; P=0.77). At day 5, worsening heart failure had occurred in 227 patients (6.9%) in the serelaxin group and in 252 (7.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.07; P=0.19). There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of death from any cause at 180 days, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or rehospitalization for heart failure or renal failure at 180 days, or the length of the index hospital stay. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. In this trial involving patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure, an infusion of serelaxin did not result in a lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes at 180 days or worsening heart failure at 5 days than placebo. (Funded by Novartis Pharma; RELAX-AHF-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01870778.)

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of mortality worldwide. While conventional risk factors have been studied and managed, CVD continues to pose a global threat. Risk scoring systems based on these factors have been developed to predict acute coronary syndromes and guide therapeutic interventions. However, traditional risk algorithms may not fully capture the complexities of individual patients. Recent research highlights the role of inflammation, particularly chronic low-grade inflammation, in the pathogenesis of coronary artery disease (CAD). C-reactive protein (CRP) is an inflammatory molecule that has demonstrated value as a predictive marker for cardiovascular risk assessment, both independently and in conjunction with other parameters. It has been incorporated into risk assessment algorithms, enhancing risk prediction and guiding therapeutic decisions. Pharmacological interventions with anti-inflammatory properties, such as statins, glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists, and interleukin-1 inhibitors, have shown promising effects in reducing both cardiovascular risks and CRP levels. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of CRP as a marker of systemic inflammation in CAD. By exploring the current knowledge surrounding CRP and its implications for risk prediction and therapeutic interventions, this review contributes to the advancement of personalized cardiology and the optimization of patient care.

BACKGROUND: ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) guidelines recommend pharmaco-invasive treatment if timely primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unavailable. Full-dose tenecteplase is associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage in older patients. Whether pharmaco-invasive treatment with half-dose tenecteplase is effective and safe in older patients with STEMI is unknown. METHODS: STREAM-2 (Strategic Reperfusion in Elderly Patients Early After Myocardial Infarction) was an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, multicenter study. Patients ≥60 years of age with ≥2 mm ST-segment elevation in 2 contiguous leads, unable to undergo primary PCI within 1 hour, were randomly assigned (2:1) to half-dose tenecteplase followed by coronary angiography and PCI (if indicated) 6 to 24 hours after randomization, or to primary PCI. Efficacy end points of primary interest were ST resolution and the 30-day composite of death, shock, heart failure, or reinfarction. Safety assessments included stroke and nonintracranial bleeding. RESULTS: Patients were assigned to pharmaco-invasive treatment (n=401) or primary PCI (n=203). Median times from randomization to tenecteplase or sheath insertion were 10 and 81 minutes, respectively. After last angiography, 85.2% of patients undergoing pharmaco-invasive treatment and 78.4% of patients undergoing primary PCI had ≥50% resolution of ST-segment elevation; their residual median sums of ST deviations were 4.5 versus 5.5 mm, respectively. Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade 3 at last angiography was ≈87% in both groups. The composite clinical end point occurred in 12.8% (51/400) of patients undergoing pharmaco-invasive treatment and 13.3% (27/203) of patients undergoing primary PCI (relative risk, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.62–1.48]). Six intracranial hemorrhages occurred in the pharmaco-invasive arm (1.5%): 3 were protocol violations (excess anticoagulation in 2 and uncontrolled hypertension in 1). No intracranial bleeding occurred in the primary PCI arm. The incidence of major nonintracranial bleeding was low in both groups (<1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Halving the dose of tenecteplase in a pharmaco-invasive strategy in this early-presenting, older STEMI population was associated with electrocardiographic changes that were at least comparable to those after primary PCI. Similar clinical efficacy and angiographic end points occurred in both treatment groups. The risk of intracranial hemorrhage was higher with half-dose tenecteplase than with primary PCI. If timely PCI is unavailable, this pharmaco-invasive strategy is a reasonable alternative, provided that contraindications to fibrinolysis are observed and excess anticoagulation is avoided. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02777580.

A low proportion of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in low- to middle-income countries receive reperfusion therapy. Although primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the method of choice, a pharmacoinvasive strategy (PIs) is reasonable when primary PCI cannot be delivered on a timely basis. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a PIs compared with primary PCI in a real-world setting. This was a prospective registry that included patients with STEMI who received reperfusion during the first 12 hours from symptom onset. The primary composite end point was the occurrence of cardiovascular death, cardiogenic shock, recurrent myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure at 30 days according to the reperfusion strategy used. The key safety end point was major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] score 3-5) at 30 days. We included 579 patients with STEMI, 49.7% underwent primary PCI and 50.2% received PIs. Those who received a PIs approach were more likely to present with Killip class > 1 and to have a history of diabetes but were less likely to have a previous cardiovascular disease diagnosis. No statistically significant difference was shown in the primary composite end point according to reperfusion strategy (hazard ratio for PIs, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-1.21; P = 0.24). Major bleeding was not different among groups (hazard ratio for PIs, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-1.86; P = 0.81). Two patients in the PIs group (0.6%) and no patients in the PCI group had intracranial bleeding (P = 0.15). In this prospective real-world registry, major cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding were not different among patients who underwent a PIs or primary PCI. The study suggests that a PIs is an effective and safe option for patients with STEMI when access to primary PCI is limited.