CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Late Survival Benefit of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Compared With Medical Therapy in Patients With Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion: A 10-Year Follow-Up Study Post-Discharge Bleeding and Mortality Following Acute Coronary Syndromes With or Without PCI Optimal medical therapy vs. coronary revascularization for patients presenting with chronic total occlusion: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score adjusted studies Acute Coronary Syndrome Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Effects of clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor on endothelial function, inflammatory parameters, and platelet function in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery stenting: a randomized, blinded, parallel study Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries as compared with myocardial infarction and obstructive coronary disease: outcomes in a Medicare population Switching P2Y12-receptor inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease Multivessel Versus Culprit-Vessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Cardiogenic Shock

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.