CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Acute Coronary Syndrom

Abstract

Recommended Article

Editor's Choice- Impact of immediate multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention versus culprit lesion intervention on 1-year outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Results of the randomised IABP-SHOCK II trial Efficacy and Safety of Stents in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome Prognostic and Practical Validation of Current Definitions of Myocardial Infarction Associated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention High-Sensitivity Troponin and The Application of Risk Stratification Thresholds in Patients with Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Recommendations for Institutions Transitioning to High-Sensitivity Troponin Testing JACC Scientific Expert Panel MR-proADM as a Prognostic Marker in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction-DANAMI-3 (a Danish Study of Optimal Acute Treatment of Patients With STEMI) Substudy New technologies for intensive prevention programs after myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the NET-IPP trial

Original Research2016 Feb;172:1-8.

JOURNAL:Am Heart J. Article Link

Non-eligibility for reperfusion therapy in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Contemporary insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR)

Dasari TW, Hamilton S, Chen AY et al. Keywords: STEMI; non-eligibility for reperfusion therapy; PCI; hospital mortality

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Reperfusion therapy is lifesaving in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Contemporary data describing the characteristics and outcomes of patients presenting with STEMI not receiving reperfusion therapy are lacking.


METHODS - Using the ACTION Registry-GWTG database, we examined 219,726 STEMI patients (January 2007-December 2013) at 721 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-capable hospitals in United States. Clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes were stratified by those who underwent reperfusion (n = 188,200; 86%), those who did not undergo reperfusion with a reason for ineligibility (n = 27,179; 12%), and those without reperfusion but had no reason for ineligibility (n = 4,347; 2%).


RESULTS - Compared with STEMI patients receiving reperfusion therapy, the nonreperfusion groups were older, were more often female, and had higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, prior myocardial infarction, prior stroke, atrial fibrillation, and left bundle-branch block and heart failure on presentation. The major reason for reperfusion noneligibility was coronary anatomy not suitable for PCI (33%). Presence of 3-vessel coronary disease was more common in the nonreperfusion groups (with or without a documented reason) compared with reperfusion group (38% and 36% vs 26%, P < .001, respectively). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients not receiving reperfusion therapy with or without a documented reason compared with the reperfusion group (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI] 1.88 [1.78-1.99] and 1.37 [1.21-1.57], respectively).


CONCLUSION - Most patients with STEMI not receiving reperfusion therapy had a documented reason. Coronary anatomy not suitable for PCI was the major contributor to ineligibility. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients not receiving reperfusion therapy.


Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.