CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Effect of Medication Co-payment Vouchers on P2Y12 Inhibitor Use and Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Myocardial Infarction: The ARTEMIS Randomized Clinical Trial OPTIMAL USE OF LIPID-LOWERING THERAPY AFTER ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROMES: A Position Paper endorsed by the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes: From Pathogenesis to the Fine Line Between Bleeding and Ischemic Risk 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Chronic Total Occlusion—The Michigan Experience: Insights From the BMC2 Registry Stent Thrombosis Risk Over Time on the Basis of Clinical Presentation and Platelet Reactivity: Analysis From ADAPT-DES 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 Association of Acute Procedural Results with Long-term Outcomes After CTO-PCI

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.