CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

急性冠脉综合征

Abstract

Recommended Article

Homeostatic Chemokines and Prognosis in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Considerations for Single-Measurement Risk-Stratification Strategies for Myocardial Infarction Using Cardiac Troponin Assays Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction Epidemiology and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome Association of Silent Myocardial Infarction and Sudden Cardiac Death In-Hospital Coronary Revascularization Rates and Post-Discharge Mortality Risk in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Acute Myocardial Injury in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 Infection: A Review Optimum Blood Pressure in Patients With Shock After Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac Arrest

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 strategiesfor 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.