In a previous issue of Annals of Medicine, we presented evidence in support of the concept that an abnormally increased production of reactive oxygen species plays a central role in the genesis and progression of cardiovascular disease. While a number of preclinical lines of evidence support this concept, and despite the results of many studies suggesting a beneficial impact of antioxidant drugs on endothelial function, large clinical trials have failed to demonstrate a benefit of antioxidants on cardiovascular outcomes. Studies exploring the possibility that classical antioxidants such as vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, or folic acid may improve the prognosis of patients with cardiac disease have substantially reported neutral—and occasionally negative—results. In contrast, medications such as statins, ACE inhibitors, certain β-blockers, or angiotensin I receptor blockers, which possess indirect ‘ancillary’ antioxidant properties, have been associated with beneficial effects in both preclinical studies and large clinical trials. The reasons for the failure of the ‘direct’ approach to antioxidant therapy, and for the success of the therapy with these drugs, are discussed in the present review.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is considered a life-saving treatment option for patients in cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) due to acute pulmonary embolism (PE). We sought to analyze use and outcome of ECMO with or without adjunctive treatment strategies in patients with acute PE. We retrospectively analyzed data on patient characteristics, treatments, and in-hospital outcomes for all PE patients (ICD-code I26) undergoing ECMO in Germany between 2005 and 2018. At total of 1,172,354 patients were hospitalized with PE; of those, 2,197 (0.2%) were treated with ECMO support. Cardiac arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation was present in 77,196 (6.5%) patients. While more than one fourth of those patients were treated with systemic thrombolysis alone (n = 20,839 patients; 27.0%), a minority of patients received thrombolysis and VA-ECMO (n = 165; 0.2%), embolectomy and VA-ECMO (n = 385; 0.5%) or VA-ECMOalone (n = 588; 0.8%). A multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated the lowest risk for in-hospital death in patients who received embolectomy in combination with VA-ECMO (OR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.41-0.61], p < 0.001), thrombolysis and VA-ECMO (0.60 [0.43-0.85], p = 0.003) or VA-ECMO alone (0.68 [0.57-0.82], p < 0.001) compared to thrombolysis alone (1.04 [0.99-1.01], p = 0.116). Our findings suggest that the use of VA-ECMO alone or as part of a multi-pronged reperfusion approach including embolectomy or thrombolysis might offer survival advantages compared to thrombolysis alone in patients with PE deteriorating to cardiac arrest.

Aims: In a randomized, parallel, blinded study, we investigate the impact of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor on peripheral endothelial function in patients undergoing stenting for an acute coronary syndrome. Methods and results: The primary endpoint of the study was the change in endothelium-dependent flow-mediated dilation (FMD) following stenting. A total of 90 patients (age 62 ± 9 years, 81 males, 22 diabetics, 49 non-ST elevation myocardial infarctions) were enrolled. There were no significant differences among groups in any clinical parameter. Acutely before stenting, all three drugs improved FMD without differences between groups (P = 0.73). Stenting blunted FMD in the clopidogrel and ticagrelor group (both P < 0.01), but not in the prasugrel group. During follow-up, prasugrel was superior to clopidogrel [mean difference 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–3.58; P = 0.0047] and ticagrelor (mean difference 1.57, 95% CI 0.31–2.83; P = 0.0155), but this difference was limited to patients who received the study therapy 2 h before stenting. Ticagrelor was not significantly superior to clopidogrel (mean difference 0.55, 95% CI −0.73 to 1.82; P = 0.39). No significant differences were seen among groups for low-flow-mediated dilation. Plasma interleukin (IL)-6 (P = 0.02 and P = 0.01, respectively) and platelet aggregation reactivity in response to adenosine diphosphate (P = 0.002 and P = 0.035) were lower in the prasugrel compared to clopidogrel and ticagrelor group. Conclusion: As compared to ticagrelor and clopidogrel, therapy with prasugrel in patients undergoing stenting for an acute coronary syndrome is associated with improved endothelial function, stronger platelet inhibition, and reduced IL-6 levels, all of which may have prognostic implications. This effect was lost in patients who received the study medication immediately after stenting. EUDRACT-No: 2011-005305-73