CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

An EAPCI Expert Consensus Document on Ischaemia with Non-Obstructive Coronary Arteries in Collaboration with European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology & Microcirculation Endorsed by Coronary Vasomotor Disorders International Study Group The Wait for High-Sensitivity Troponin Is Over—Proceed Cautiously Culprit lesion location and outcome in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a substudy of the IABP-SHOCK II-trial Association Between Collateral Circulation and Myocardial Viability Evaluated by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Coronary Artery Chronic Total Occlusion Early Versus Standard Care Invasive Examination and Treatment of Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: The VERDICT (Very EaRly vs Deferred Invasive evaluation using Computerized Tomography) - Randomized Controlled Trial Heart Regeneration by Endogenous Stem Cells and Cardiomyocyte Proliferation: Controversy, Fallacy, and Progress Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of DAPT disruption due to non-compliance vs. bleeding after PCI: insights from the PARIS Registry

Original Research2016 Jun 15;117(12):1904-10

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Pharmacoinvasive and Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (from the Mayo Clinic STEMI Network)

Siontis KC, Barsness GW, Gersh BJ et al. Keywords: Pharmacoinvasive; Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ABSTRACT

The effectiveness of a pharmacoinvasive strategy consisting of fibrinolysis and transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to primary PCI (PPCI) in patients presenting to non-PCI-capable hospitals with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is not well defined. We analyzed data from the Mayo Clinic STEMI database of patients treated with a pharmacoinvasive strategy (favored in those presenting early after symptom onset) or PPCI in a regional STEMI network from 2004 to 2012. A total of 364 and 1,337 patients were included in the pharmacoinvasive and PPCI groups, respectively. Patients in the PPCI group were older and more frequently had cardiogenic shock at the time of presentation (12.1% vs 7.7%, p = 0.018). Death from any cause occurred in 58 (16%) and 314 (23%) patients in the pharmacoinvasive and PPCI groups, respectively (median follow-up 3.9 and 4.4 years, respectively). In multivariate analyses adjusting for age, gender, and other variables for which the 2 groups differed at baseline, there was no significant difference between the 2 strategies for 30-day (hazard ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.21) or overall mortality (hazard ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12). Shorter door-to-balloon time was associated with increased effectiveness of PPCI (p for trend = 0.015), but there was no difference between the 2 strategies even when considering only the patients with door-to-balloon time in the lowest quartile. In conclusion, fibrinolysis followed by transfer for PCI represents a reasonable alternative when PPCI is not readily available especially in patients presenting early after symptom onset.


Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.