The rapid emergence of new synthetic opioids (NSOs), especially potent 2-benzylbenzimidazole derivatives known as nitazenes, poses challenges to public health and toxicologists. Among these substances, 5-methyl etodesnitazene has recently appeared on the illicit market. This compound was shown to be approximately twice as potent as fentanyl at the µ-opioid receptor, and overdose may lead to potentially fatal respiratory depression. Detecting the drug and its metabolites is therefore critical for clinical and forensic investigations. This study aimed to characterize the metabolic profile of 5-methyl etodesnitazene in humans. Metabolic transformations were investigated through incubations with ten-donor pooled human hepatocytes and analysis of blood and urine samples from a postmortem case positive for 5-methyl etodesnitazene. Samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization-high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-HRMS/MS) in positive- and negative-ionization modes, and software-aided data mining. In positive mode, 5-methyl etodesnitazene produced an intense signal in its di-protonated form, which generated informative spectra, facilitating structural elucidation. Biotransformations included N- and O-deethylation, consistent with structural analogs, as well as ω-carboxylation specific to the methylated benzimidazole core; phase II metabolites were not detected. We suggest N-deethyl-5-methyl etodesnitazene, N-deethyl-5-carboxy etodesnitazene, and 5-carboxy etodesnitazene in blood, and N-deethyl-5-carboxy-4′-hydroxy etodesnitazene, 5-carboxy-4′-hydroxy etodesnitazene, and N-deethyl-5-carboxy etodesnitazene in urine, as metabolite biomarkers of consumption in clinical and forensic settings. Overall, metabolite profiles were consistent across in vitro and in vivo data, with minor matrix-specific differences. Considering that nitazene metabolites are often active and their metabolism is susceptible to genetic polymorphism, further research on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of 5-methyl etodesnitazene is warranted.
BACKGROUND:Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are recommended treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) but are not used in >20% of cases. OBJECTIVES:The aim of the SELUTION4ISR (SELUTION SLR 014 In-stent Restenosis) trial was to assess the safety and effectiveness of a novel sirolimus drug-eluting balloon (DEB). METHODS:After successful lesion predilation, patients with ISR were randomly assigned to the SELUTION Sustained Limus Release (MedAlliance) DEB or a control strategy of usual care, including any approved DES or balloon angioplasty (BA) on the basis of operator selection prerandomization. Randomization to selected BA control treatment was limited to 20% of patients. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization) assessed at 1 year in the per protocol group (all treated eligible patients with complete primary endpoint follow-up). Noninferiority was established if the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% credible interval was smaller than 10%. A sequential secondary hypothesis test was performed comparing DEB with DES in patients with single-layer ISR. RESULTS:From July 2020 to July 2024, 418 patients were randomly assigned to the DEB group (n = 210) or the control group (n = 208), with 390 patients per protocol (DEB, 197; control, 193 [154 DES; 39 BA]). TLF occurred in 32 (16.2%) of 197 patients in the DEB group and in 28 (14.5%) of 193 patients in the control group (difference: 1.7%; 95% credible interval: -5.5% to 8.9%; posterior probability of noninferiority: 98.80%). In the secondary hypothesis test, TLF occurred in 22 (14.2%) of 155 patients in the DEB group and in 9 (6.5%) of 138 patients in the DES control group (difference: 7.7%; 95% credible interval: 0.6%-14.6%, posterior probability for noninferiority: 76.07%). TLF according to operator selected control was higher for DEB compared with DES (15.3% vs 7.1%; difference: 8.1%; 95% credible interval: 1.4%-15.0%) and lower for DEB compared with BA (23.6% vs 43.6%; difference: 23.7%; 95% credible interval: -41.4% to -1.5%; Pforinteraction = 0.0026). CONCLUSIONS:The sirolimus DEB was noninferior to a usual care control strategy including 80% repeat DES but not noninferior to DES for single-layer ISR for TLF at 12 months. There was significant interaction on the basis of operator selection of DES vs BA. (SELUTION SLR 014 In-stent Restenosis [SELUTION4ISR]; NCT04280029).
Mitochondria are central regulators of cardiac homeostasis, integrating energy production, redox balance, calcium handling, and innate immune signaling. In cardiovascular disease (CVD), mitochondrial dysfunction acts as a unifying mechanism connecting oxidative stress, metabolic inflexibility, inflammation, and structural remodeling. Disturbances in mitochondrial quality control—encompassing fusion–fission dynamics, PINK1/Parkin- and receptor-mediated mitophagy, biogenesis, and proteostasis—compromise mitochondrial integrity and amplify cardiomyocyte injury. Excess reactive oxygen species, mitochondrial DNA release, and calcium overload further activate cGAS–STING, NLRP3 inflammasomes, and mPTP-driven cell death pathways, perpetuating maladaptive remodeling. Therapeutic strategies targeting mitochondrial dysfunction have rapidly expanded, ranging from mitochondria-targeted antioxidants (such as MitoQ and SS-31), nutraceuticals, metabolic modulators (SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin), and mitophagy or biogenesis activators to innovative approaches including mtDNA editing, nanocarrier-based delivery, and mitochondrial transplantation. These interventions aim to restore organelle structure, improve bioenergetics, and reestablish balanced quality control networks. This review integrates recent mechanistic insights with emerging translational evidence, outlining how mitochondria function as bioenergetic and inflammatory hubs in CVD. By synthesizing established and next-generation therapeutic strategies, it highlights the potential of precision mitochondrial medicine to reshape the future management of cardiovascular disease.
BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend a trial of antiarrhythmic drugs before catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation. Whether pulsed field ablation (PFA) may be a preferred initial treatment is unclear. METHODS:We conducted an international, randomized trial involving patients with previously untreated persistent atrial fibrillation. The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive PFA performed with a pentaspline catheter or to receive antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. An additional group of patients (PFA-assigned) underwent PFA for the analysis of the primary safety end point alone. All the patients received an insertable cardiac monitor. The primary effectiveness end point was the short-term and long-term success of treatment through 12 months. Short-term success was defined as procedural success in the PFA group and the absence of ablation during the blanking period (90 days after treatment initiation) in the antiarrhythmic-drug group. Long-term success was defined as freedom from recurrence of atrial arrhythmias, repeat ablation, or need for antiarrhythmic drugs from 90 days through 12 months (in the PFA group) and freedom from amiodarone use at any time. The primary safety end point was device- and procedure-related serious adverse events. RESULTS:At 12 months, treatment success was observed in 128 of 207 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 56%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48 to 63) in the PFA group and in 40 of 103 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate, 30%; 95% CI, 21 to 40) in the antiarrhythmic-drug group (hazard ratio for composite treatment failure [a lack of short- and long-term success], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.65; P<0.001). A primary safety end-point event occurred in 13 of 257 patients (5.1%) in the combined PFA group (both randomized and PFA-assigned groups). At 12 months, serious adverse events had occurred in 45 patients (25%) in the PFA group and in 20 patients (21%) in the antiarrhythmic-drug group. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, the risk of recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was significantly lower among those who received PFA as first-line treatment than among those who received antiarrhythmic-drug therapy. (Funded by Boston Scientific; AVANT GUARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT06096337.).
AIMS:We aimed to develop the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) quality indicators (QIs) for myocardial infarction (MI), from 1 year after hospital discharge, corresponding to transition to the chronic coronary syndrome phases. METHODS AND RESULTS:We collaborated with the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC) and developed QIs for the long-term management of patients following MI. We applied the ESC methodology for QI development by (i) determining key domains of post-MI care; (ii) developing candidate QIs by performing a systematic review of the literature, and (iii) selecting the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi approach. In total, 18 QIs were identified across seven domains of care including (i) structural framework, (ii) risk assessment and follow-up, (iii) pharmacological management, (iv) rehabilitation, behavioural, and preventive interventions, (v) coronary revascularization, (vi) clinical outcomes, and (vii) patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION:We present the ESC QIs from 1 year after hospitalization for MI, to standardize and address gaps in care for this high-risk group. These QIs are supported by evidence from contemporary literature, endorsed by expert consensus, and aligned with the 2024 ESC guidelines on the management of chronic coronary syndromes. LAY SUMMARY:Measures to evaluate and improve the long-term management of patients following a heart attack are needed. In this paper, we identified key aspects of care that can help clinicians, decision-makers and patients improve the quality of care, from one year after a heart attack onwards, and help address inequalities and variations in clinical practice.
