CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

急性冠脉综合征

科研文章

荐读文献

Long-Term Prognostic Implications of Previous Silent Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting With Acute Myocardial Infarction Dynamic Myocardial Ultrasound Localization Angiography Successful catheter ablation of electrical storm after myocardial infarction Morphine and Cardiovascular Outcomes Among Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Coronary Angiography Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock Efficacy and Safety of Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction In-Hospital Coronary Revascularization Rates and Post-Discharge Mortality Risk in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome The Potential Use of the Index of Microcirculatory Resistance to Guide Stratification of Patients for Adjunctive Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction SCAI clinical expert consensus statement on the classification of cardiogenic shock: This document was endorsed by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) in April 2019 Epidemiology and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome

Original Research2017 Oct 15;120(8):1245-1253

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Trends and Impact of Door-to-Balloon Time on Clinical Outcomes in Patients Aged <75, 75 to 84, and ≥85 Years With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Yudi MB, Hamilton G, Melbourne Interventional Group Keywords: ST-elevation myocardial infarction; Door-to-Balloon Time; MACE

ABSTRACT

Guidelines strongly recommend patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) receive timely mechanical reperfusion, defined as door-to-balloon time (DTBT) ≤90 minutes. The impact of timely reperfusion on clinical outcomes in patients aged 75-84 and ≥85 years is uncertain. We analysed 2,972 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention from the Melbourne Interventional Group Registry (2005-2014). Patients aged <75 years were included in the younger group, those aged 75-84 years were in the elderly group and those ≥85 years were in the very elderly group. The primary endpoints were 12-month mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). 2,307 (77.6%) patients were <75 years (mean age 59 ± 9 years), 495 (16.7%) were 75-84 years and 170 (5.7%) were ≥85 years. There has been a significant decrease in DTBT over 10 years in younger and elderly patients (p-for-trend <0.01 and 0.03) with a trend in the very elderly (p-for-trend 0.08). Compared to younger and elderly patients, the very elderly had higher 12-month mortality (3.6% vs 10.7% vs. 29.4%; p = 0.001) and MACE (10.8% vs 20.6% vs 33.5%; p = 0.001). DTBT ≤90 minutes was associated with improved outcomes on univariate analysis but was not an independent predictor of improved 12-month mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.31) or MACE (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67-1.16). In conclusion, over a 10-year period, there was an improvement in DTBT in patients aged <75 years and 75-84 years however DTBT ≤90 minutes was not an independent predictor of 12-month outcomes. Thus assessing whether patients aged ≥85 years are suitable for invasive management does not necessarily translate to worse clinical outcomes.