Sierra-Fragoso ÁA, Galván-García JE, Vargas-Ramírez JF, Arboine-Aguirre LA, Muñoz-Consuegra CE, Zapata-Ruiz A, Palacios-Rodríguez JM

Language: English
References: 12
Page: 126-133
PDF size: 269.76 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The delays associated with PPCI reduce the benefits of this therapy. To minimize these delays, the pharmacoinvasive strategy (PS) was developed, consisting of applying thrombolytic therapy followed by coronary angioplasty 2 to 24 hours after. Objective: To compare the safety and efficiency of PPCI vs PS in STEMI. Methods: We included patients with STEMI who had emergency PCI. The primary endpoint was combined major adverse cardiac events (MACE), death, reinfarction, stroke, target vessel revascularization (TVR) during hospitalization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of MACE, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium: BARC ≥ 3). Results: A total of 400 patients, 263 (65.8%) for PPCI group, 114 (28.5%) for PS group and 23 (5.75%) for diagnostic group. The PS group, 79 (69.3%) were then categorized as systematic angioplasty having had a successful thrombolysis, and 35 (30.7%) were rescue angioplasty because they had a failed thrombolysis. There were no differences in MACE: 13 (9.5%) patients in PS and 27 (10.3%) patients in the PPCI (p = 0.806), there were no differences in the individual components of MACE. The rate of major bleeding was the same, 5 (3.6%) and 4 (1.5%) respectively (p = 0.173). The multivariate analysis did not show a relationship between MACE and the reperfusion strategy. Conclusions: The pharmacoinvasive strategy when compared to PPCI has a similar rate of primary and secondary endpoints. There is no increase in major bleeding therefore, it is an important strategy that offers a reperfusion therapy for patients with STEMI in a non-PCI capable hospital.

REFERENCES

1. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018; 39 (2): 119-177.

2. Nallamothu BK, Bradley EH, Krumholz HM. Time to treatment in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357 (16): 1631-1638.

3. Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, Thuesen L, Kelbaek H, Thayssen P et al. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349 (8): 733-742.

4. Vora AN, Holmes DN, Rokos I, Roe MT, Granger CB, French WJ et al. Fibrinolysis use among patients requiring interhospital transfer for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction care: a report from the US National Cardiovascular Data Registry. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175 (2): 207-215.

5. Bøhmer E, Hoffmann P, Abdelnoor M, Arnesen H, Halvorsen S. Efficacy and safety of immediate angioplasty versus ischemia-guided management after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction in areas with very long transfer distances results of the NORDISTEMI (NORwegian study on DIstrict treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55 (2): 102-110.

6. Lavi S, Cantor WJ, Casanova A, Tan MK, Yan AT, Džavík V et al. Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin in the pharmacoinvasive management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Insights from the TRANSFER-AMI trial. Am Heart J. 2012; 163 (2): 176-81.e2.

7. Fernández-Avilés F, Alonso JJ, Peña G, Blanco J, Alonso-Briales J, López-Mesa J et al. Primary angioplasty vs. early routine post-fibrinolysis angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation: the GRACIA-2 non-inferiority, randomized, controlled trial. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28 (8): 949-960.

8. Welsh RC, Van de Werf F, Westerhout CM, Goldstein P, Gershlick AH, Wilcox RG et al. Outcomes of a pharmacoinvasive strategy for successful versus failed fibrinolysis and primary percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction (from the STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction [STREAM] study). Am J Cardiol. 2014; 114 (6): 811-819.

9. Rashid MK, Guron N, Bernick J, Wells GA, Blondeau M, Chong AY et al. Safety and efficacy of a pharmacoinvasive strategy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a patient population study comparing a pharmacoinvasive strategy with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy within a regional system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9 (19): 2014-2020.

10. Sim DS, Jeong MH, Ahn Y, Kim YJ, Chae SC, Hong TJ et al. Pharmacoinvasive strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with st-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a propensity score-matched analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9 (9). pii: e003508.

11. Danchin N, Dos Santos Teixeira N, Puymirat E. Weaknesses in regional primary coronary angioplasty programs: is there still a role for a pharmaco-invasive approach? Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2014; 67 (8): 659-665.

12. Gershlick AH, Stephens-Lloyd A, Hughes S, Abrams KR, Stevens SE, Uren NG et al. Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353 (26): 2758-2768.