CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Scientific Library

Abstract

Recommended Article

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 Outcome of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention during on- versus off-hours (a Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction [HORIZONS-AMI] trial substudy) Genotype-Guided Strategy for Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors Respiratory syncytial virus infection and risk of acute myocardial infarction Comparison of hospital variation in acute myocardial infarction care and outcome between Sweden and United Kingdom: population based cohort study using nationwide clinical registries 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 Access Site and Outcomes for Unprotected Left Main Stem Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis of the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Database Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin in lowering LDL cholesterol : A meta-analysis of trials with East Asian populations

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.