Effect of COMBinAtion therapy with remote ischemic conditioning and exenatide on the Myocardial Infarct size: a two-by-two factorial randomized trial (COMBAT-MI).
Basic Res Cardiol · 2021
Last updated 2026-05-28In a study of 222 heart attack patients, neither remote ischemic conditioning (a procedure to protect the heart) nor the GLP-1 drug exenatide (given alongside standard treatment) reduced heart muscle damage compared to placebo. The average heart damage was 24% in the remote ischemic conditioning group vs. 23.7% in the sham group, and 25.1% in the exenatide group vs. 22.5% in the placebo group. No unexpected side effects were reported.
AI summary of the abstract below.
| Journal | Basic Res Cardiol, 2021 |
|---|---|
| Citations | 31 |
| Relative citation ratio | 2.22 |
| NIH percentile | 76 |
| Molecules | exenatide |
| Conditions studied | Type 2 Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risk Reduction, Heart Failure |
Abstract
Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) and the GLP-1 analog exenatide activate different cardioprotective pathways and may have additive effects on infarct size (IS). Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy of RIC as compared with sham procedure, and of exenatide, as compared with placebo, and the interaction between both, to reduce IS in humans. We designed a two-by-two factorial, randomized controlled, blinded, multicenter, clinical trial. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 6 h of symptoms were randomized to RIC or sham procedure and exenatide or matching placebo. The primary outcome was IS measured by late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance performed 3-7 days after PPCI. The secondary outcomes were myocardial salvage index, transmurality index, left ventricular ejection fraction and relative microvascular obstruction volume. A total of 378 patients were randomly allocated, and after applying exclusion criteria, 222 patients were available for analysis. There were no significant interactions between the two randomization factors on the primary or secondary outcomes. IS was similar between groups for the RIC (24 ± 11.8% in the RIC group vs 23.7 ± 10.9% in the sham group, P = 0.827) and the exenatide hypotheses (25.1 ± 11.5% in the exenatide group vs 22.5 ± 10.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.092). There were no effects with either RIC or exenatide on the secondary outcomes. Unexpected adverse events or side effects of RIC and exenatide were not observed. In conclusion, neither RIC nor exenatide, or its combination, were able to reduce IS in STEMI patients when administered as an adjunct to PPCI.
Verbatim abstract via PubMed 33495853 ↗
Related research
- Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.
- Exenatide once weekly versus placebo in Parkinson's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
- Efficacy and safety of exenatide once weekly versus sitagliptin or pioglitazone as an adjunct to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes (DURATION-2): a randomised trial.
- Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide ER in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): A 56-Week, Open-Label, Randomized Clinical Trial.
- Exenatide reduces reperfusion injury in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
- Exenatide and the treatment of patients with Parkinson's disease.
- Use of twice-daily exenatide in Basal insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.
- Exenatide once weekly versus liraglutide once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes (DURATION-6): a randomised, open-label study.