Primary angioplasty versus systemic thrombolysis in anterior myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES: This study compares the efficacy of primary angioplasty and systemic thrombolysis with t-PA in reducing the in-hospital mortality of patients with anterior AMI. BACKGROUND: Controversy still exists about the relative benefit of primary angioplasty over thrombolysis as treatment for AMI. METHODS: Two-hundred and twenty patients with anterior AMI were randomly assigned in our institution to primary angioplasty (109 patients) or systemic thrombolysis with accelerated t-PA (111 patients) within the first five hours from the onset of symptoms. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Primary angioplasty was independently associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (2.8% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.02, adjusted odds ratio 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.85). During hospitalization, patients treated by angioplasty had a lower frequency of postinfarction angina or positive stress test (11.9% vs. 25.2%, p = 0.01) and less frequently underwent percutaneous or surgical revascularization after the initial treatment (22.0% vs. 47.7%, p < 0.001) than did patients treated by t-PA. At six month follow-up, patients treated by angioplasty had a lower cumulative rate of death (4.6% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.05) and revascularization (31.2% vs. 55.9%, p < 0.001) than those treated by t-PA. CONCLUSIONS: In centers with an experienced and readily available interventional team, primary angioplasty is superior to t-PA for the treatment of anterior AMI.     

Long-term follow-up of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty or thrombolysis. Results of the MITRA trial

Long-term follow-up after treatment with primary angioplasty compared to treatment with thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains still to be determined. We therefore analyzed the data of the "Maximal Individual Therapy" in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA-1) Registry. Follow-up data for a median of 17 months after discharge were available in 2090 out of 2195 (95%) AMI patients treated with thrombolysis, as well as 293 out of 312 patients (94%) treated with primary angioplasty. There were only small differences in patient characteristics between the two treatment groups. Compared to patients treated with thrombolysis, those treated with primary angioplasty had a higher prevalence of prior myocardial infarction (16.4% versus 12.2%, p = 0.04), longer prehospital delay: 10 minutes (130 minutes versus 120 minutes, p = 0.002), and a longer door-to-treatment time: 45 minutes (p < 0.001). Primary angioplasty patients were more likely to be treated with beta-blockers (primary angioplasty 79.8% versus thrombolysis 66.2%, p < 0.001) or statins (24.5% versus 16.5%, p < 0.001). There was no difference between the treatment groups for total mortality (p = 0.90) nor for the combined endpoint of death or re-infarction (p = 0.85). However, the combined endpoint of death, re-infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary bypass surgery was significantly lower in the primary angioplasty group (primary angioplasty 25.6% versus thrombolysis 32.3%, univariate odds ratio 0.72, 95% CI: 0.55-0.95, p = 0.02). This result was confirmed by multivariate analysis after adjusting for confounding parameters (multivariate odds ratio: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.91). The beneficial effect of primary angioplasty compared to thrombolysis achieved during the hospital stay after an AMI is maintained during a 17 month follow-up. AMI patients treated with thrombolysis were more likely to be treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary bypass surgery after discharge.     

Prim?r-Dilatation versus Thrombolyse bei Patienten mit akutem Myokardinfarkt, die nicht in randomisierte Studien eingeschlossen wurden

There have been some prospective randomized studies which compared primary angioplasty with intravenous thrombolysis in patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, a substantial number of patients with AMI who would not have been included in those trials are treated with one of these two therapeutic options. To describe the proportions, characteristics, and outcome of these patients treated with primary angioplasty or thrombolysis we analyzed the data of the prospective "Maximal Individual Optimized Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction" (MITRA) trial. Out of 3308 patients treated with primary angioplasty or thrombolysis, 737 (22.3%) belonged to one of the following groups, not included in current randomized trials: Left bundle branch block, non-diagnostic first ECG, pre-hospital delay > 12 hours or unknown pre-hospital delay. Primary angioplasty was performed in 158/737 (21.4%) and thrombolysis received 579/737 (78.6%) of the patients. There were only minor differences regarding patients' characteristics and concomitant diseases between the two groups. Patients treated with primary angioplasty were 3 years younger (62 years median versus 65 years median (p < 0.036). They also more often showed overt heart failure at admission compared to patients treated with thrombolysis (primary angioplasty: 3.2% versus thrombolysis: 8.9%, OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13-0.86). In-hospital time to intervention was 1 1/2 hours longer in patients treated with primary angioplasty (156 minutes median versus 47 minutes median, p = 0.001). beta-blockers were more often used with primary angioplasty compared to thrombolysis (70.31% versus 55.9%; OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.28-2.72), as well as ACE inhibitors (62% versus 49.9%; OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.14-2.35). Hospital mortality (8.2% versus 16.4%; OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.25-0.84), as well as a combined endpoint of death, reinfarction, postinfarction angina, advanced heart failure, and stroke (24.1% versus 42.3%, OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.29-0.64) were lower in patients treated with primary angioplasty compared to those treated with thrombolysis. Logistic regression analysis showed primary angioplasty to be independently associated with a lower rate of the combined endpoint (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.59-0.91), after adjusting for confounding parameters. All subgroups showed a more favorable outcome in patients treated with primary angioplasty. In clinical practice, patients with AMI, not included in current randomized trials comparing primary angioplasty with thrombolysis, account for 22% of all patients with AMI treated with one of those two therapies. Primary angioplasty seems to be associated with a lower event rate compared to thrombolysis in these patients. This has to be confirmed by a prospective randomized trial.     

Timing of aspirin administration as a determinant of survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolysis

Unlike thrombolytic agents, there are conflicting data regarding the time-dependent effect of aspirin treatment on outcome in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to evaluate the impact of timing of aspirin administration (before vs after thrombolysis) on mortality of patients with AMI. Our study included 1,200 patients with ST elevation AMI treated with thrombolysis. Early (n = 364) versus late (n = 836) users were defined as those receiving emergency aspirin before versus after initiation of thrombolysis, respectively. Time (median) from symptom onset to initiation of aspirin treatment was significantly shorter in early versus late users (1.6 vs 3.5 hours; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to baseline clinical characteristics. Early aspirin users were more likely to develop reischemia, to be treated with beta blockers, to be referred to coronary angiography, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Early users experienced lower mortality at 7 days (2.5% vs 6.0%, p = 0.01), 30 days (3.3% vs 7.3%, p = 0.008), and 1 year (5.0% vs 10.6%, p = 0.002) than late users. This survival benefit persisted for patients with and without previous aspirin therapy or revascularization and after adjustment for baseline characteristics and therapies at 7 days (odds ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.79), at 30 days (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.82), and at 1 year (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.74). Our study proposes a time-dependent benefit from aspirin in patients with AMI treated with thrombolysis.     

Comparison of primary angioplasty with conservative therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and contraindications for thrombolytic therapy

The benefit of primary angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and contraindications for thrombolysis compared to a conservative regimen is still unclear. Out of 5,869 patients with AMI registered by the MITRA trial, 337 (5.7%) patients had at least one strong contraindication for thrombolytic therapy. Out of these 337 patients 46 (13.6%) were treated with primary angioplasty and 276 (86.4%) were treated conservatively. Patients treated conservatively were older (70 years vs. 60 years; P = 0.001), had a higher rate of a history with chronic heart failure (14.8% vs. 4.4%; P = 0.053), a higher heart rate at admission (86 beats/min vs. 74 beats/min; P = 0.001), and a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (27.1% vs. 12.8%; P = 0.056). Patients treated with primary angioplasty received more often aspirin (91.3% vs. 74.6%; P = 0.012), β-blockers (60.9% vs. 46.1%; P = 0.062), angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (71.7% vs. 44%; P = 0.001), and the so-called optimal adjunctive medication (54.4% vs. 32.3%; P = 0.004). Hospital mortality was significantly lower in patients who received primary angioplasty (univariate: 2.2% vs. 24.7%; P = 0.001; multivariate: OR = 0.46; P = 0.0230). In patients with AMI and contraindications for thrombolytic therapy, primary angioplasty was associated with a significantly lower mortality compared to conservative treatment. Therefore, hospitals without the facilities to perform primary angioplasty should try to refer such patients to centers with the facilities for such a service, if this is possible in an acceptable time.Cathet. Cardiovasc. Intervent. 46:127–133, 1999. © 1999 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Effect of preinfarction angina pectoris on outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty (results from the Myocardial Infarction Registry

Preinfarction angina is associated with better clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who receive intravenous thrombolysis. This has not been proved in patients with AMI treated with primary angioplasty. We analyzed the data of the prospective multicenter Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR). Of 14,440 patients with AMI, 774 with a prehospital delay of < or =12 hours were treated with primary angioplasty. Five hundred thirty-two patients (68.7%) had preinfarction angina. Patients with preinfarction angina were slightly older than patients without (63 vs 62 years, p = 0.042), prehospital delay was 1 hour longer (180 vs 120 minutes, p = 0.001), and arterial hypertension was more prevalent (47.6% vs 32.2%, odds ratio [OR] 1.91, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.39 to 2.62). There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (5.6% vs 3.3%, OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.87), reinfarction, stroke, or the combined end point of death, reinfarction, or stroke between the 2 groups. Logistic regression analysis showed no association of preinfarction angina with the occurrence of either death (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.91 to 6.08) or the combined end points (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.31). There was also no significant difference in mortality (6% vs 5.1%, OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.52), reinfarction, stroke, postinfarction angina, or the combined end points between patients with preinfarction angina within 48 hours compared with patients with preinfarction angina between 49 hours and 4 weeks before the AMI. Thus, the MIR data showed no protective effects of preinfarction angina in patients with AMI treated with primary angioplasty.     

Decreasing hospital mortality between 1994 and 1998 in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty but not in patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis. Results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) Registry and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR)

OBJECTIVES

We investigated changes in the clinical outcome of primary angioplasty and thrombolysis for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) from 1994 to 1998.

BACKGROUND

Primary angioplasty for the treatment of AMI is a sophisticated technical procedure that requires experienced personnel and optimized hospital logistics. Growing experience with primary angioplasty in clinical routine and new adjunctive therapies may have improved the outcome over the years.

METHODS

The pooled data of two German AMI registries: the Maximal Individual Therapy in AMI (MITRA) study and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 10,118 lytic eligible patients with AMI, 1,385 (13.7%) were treated with primary angioplasty, and 8,733 (86.3%) received intravenous thrombolysis. Patients characteristics were quite balanced between the two treatment groups, but there was a higher proportion of patients with a prehospital delay of >6 h in those treated with primary angioplasty. The proportion of an in-hospital delay of more than 90 min significantly decreased in patients treated with primary angioplasty over the years (p for TREND = 0.015, multivariate odds ratio [OR] for each year of the observation PERIOD = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73– 0.96) but did not change significantly in patients treated with thrombolysis. Hospital mortality decreased significantly in the primary angioplasty group (p = 0.003 for trend; multivariate OR for each YEAR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58– 0.93). However, for patients treated with thrombolysis, hospital mortality did not change significantly (p for trend 0.175, multivariate OR for each year: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.94– 1.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with thrombolysis the clinical results of primary angioplasty for the treatment of AMI improved from 1994 to 1998. This indicates a beneficial effect of the growing experience and optimized hospital logistics of this technique over the years.     

Primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: differences between referred patients and those treated in hospitals with on-site facilities?

BACKGROUND: Primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) can only be performed in a limited number of centers. Therefore, some patients will be referred for this procedure. DESIGN: We analyzed the data of the prospective observational MITRA trial, which took place at 54 hospitals in southwest Germany, to describe current practices and outcomes in referred patients compared to patients treated on-site. RESULTS: Out of 491 patients treated with primary angioplasty, 63 (12.8%) were referred. Out of 46 hospitals without facilities to perform primary angioplasty, 29 (63%) never referred patients. Referred patients were less often male (60.3% versus 75.9%; p = 0.013), suffered more often from anterior wall infarction (62.9% versus 45.8%; p = 0.014), and more often had absolute contraindications against thrombolysis (11.1% versus 2.8%; p = 0.006). In-hospital time to treatment was 80 minutes in patients treated on-site compared to 190 minutes in referred patients (p = 0.001). There was a non-significant difference of in-hospital mortality between the two groups (11.1% for referred versus 7.5% on-site; p = 0.319). Referred patients had a higher hospital morbidity as expressed by a higher proportion of post-infarction angina (28.6% versus 4.2%; p = 0.001), a more frequent need for urgent revascularization (43.8% versus 16.4%; p = 0.001) and a higher proportion of advanced heart failure (11.1% versus 4.4%; p = 0.062). CONCLUSIONS: Referral of patients with AMI for primary angioplasty is used only in a minority of hospitals. The referred patients represent a selected, more ill subgroup, resulting in a higher hospital morbidity compared to patients treated on-site. Continuous efforts should be undertaken to decrease the time delay from admission at the initial hospital to the beginning of revascularization.     

Primary angioplasty reduces the risk of left ventricular free wall rupture compared with thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of primary angioplasty (PA) over the risk of free wall rupture (FWR) in reperfused acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that PA reduces the risk of FWR compared with thrombolysis. However, few studies have evaluated this issue, and there are no data demonstrating this hypothesis. METHODS: A total of 1,375 patients with AMI treated with PA (n = 762, 55.4%) or thrombolysis (n = 613, 44.6%) within 12 h after symptoms onset were included. The diagnosis of FWR was made either in the presence of sudden death due to electromechanical dissociation with large pericardial effusion on an echocardiogram or when demonstrated post mortem or at surgery. A multivariable analysis was performed including type of reperfusion strategy. RESULTS: The overall incidence of FWR was 2.5% (n = 34): 1.8% and 3.3% in patients treated with PA and with thrombolysis, respectively (p = 0.686). The following characteristics were associated with a higher rate of FWR in the univariable analysis: age >70 (5.2% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001), female gender (5.1% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.006), anterior location (3.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.020) and treatment >2 h after symptoms onset (3.6% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.043). In the multivariable analysis, age >70 (odds ratio [OR]: 4.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.04 to 8.62, p < 0.001) and anterior location (OR: 2.91, 95% CI: 1.36 to 6.63, p = 0.008) were independent risk factors of FWR, whereas treatment with PA was an independent protective factor (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.96, p = 0.0371). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, PA reduces the risk of FWR in comparison with thrombolysis.     

Pulse infusion thrombolysis (PIT) for large intracoronary thrombus: preventive effect against the 'no flow' phenomenon in revascularization therapy for acute myocardial infarction

Because large thrombus is a limitation for revascularization in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the present study evaluated the effectiveness of pulse infusion thrombolysis (PIT) in patients with an AMI with a large (>15 mm) coronary thrombus, focusing on the occurrence of the 'no flow' phenomenon. The retrospective study compared patients treated before (1988-95; Group A, n=74) and after (1996-99; Group B, n=40) the use of PIT, using the following parameters: lesion success (<50% stenosis during 30-min observation), procedural success (lesion success plus TIMI grade 3 flow), procedural no flow (TIMI grade 0 flow during the procedure with 'back and forth movement' of contrast dye after lesion success), persistent no flow (consistent no flow without any flow improvement at the final visualization despite intensive treatment), reocclusion rate and in-hospital death. Group B was significantly better than Group A in procedural success (90% vs 66%; p=0.005), procedural 'no flow' (51% vs 15%; p<0.001), and persistent 'no flow' (34% vs 10%; p<0.05). Subgroup comparison was performed among the following groups: Direct-BA group (n=44): treated with mechanical angioplasty alone; ICT-BA group (n=40): treated with prior intracoronary thrombolysis and angioplasty; and PIT-BA group (n=30): treated with PIT and angioplasty. There were no differences in thrombus length and lesion success among these 3 groups. Procedural success was best achieved in PIT-BA: 97% vs 52% for Direct-BA (p=0.003) and 68% for ICT-BA (p=0.009). Procedural 'no flow' was least in PIT-BA: 50% vs 3.3% for Direct-BA (p=0.003) and 25% vs 3.3% for ICT-BA (p=0.042). Persistent 'no flow' was less frequent in PIT-BA than Direct-BA: 32% vs 3.3% (p=0.009). However, the difference between ICT-BA and Direct-BA was insignificant: 13% vs 3.3% (p=0.53). There were no differences in reocclusion rate and in-hospital death among the 3 subgroups. And there were no differences between Direct-BA and ICT-BA in any parameters. PIT was effective in preventing 'no flow' in the mechanical revasculalization for AMI especially those cases with a large thrombus.     

Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: can we define subgroups of patients benefiting most from primary angioplasty? Results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry and the Myocardial Infarction Registry

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the effectiveness of primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis in clinical practice. BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, primary angioplasty for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has not yet been proven more effective than intravenous thrombolysis, nor have subgroups of patients been identified who would perhaps benefit from primary angioplasty. METHODS: The pooled data of two AMI registries--the Maximal Individual TheRapy in Acute myocardial infarction (MITRA) study and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR)--were analyzed. A total of 9,906 lytic-eligible patients with AMI, with a pre-hospital delay of < or =12 h, were treated with either primary angioplasty (n = 1,327) or thrombolysis (n = 8,579). RESULTS: Despite differences in the patients' characteristics and concomitant diseases between the two groups, the prevalence of adverse risk factors was balanced. Univariate analysis of hospital mortality showed a more favorable course for patients treated with primary angioplasty: 6.4% versus 11.3% (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.67). This was confirmed by logistic regression analysis (multivariate OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.77). Primary angioplasty was associated with a lower mortality in all subgroups analyzed. We observed a significant correlation between mortality and absolute risk reduction (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001) in the different subgroups: as mortality increased, there was an increase in absolute benefit of primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis. CONCLUSIONS: These large registry data showed the effect of primary angioplasty to be more favorable than thrombolysis for the treatment of patients with AMI in clinical practice. This effect was not restricted to special subgroups of patients. As mortality increased, the absolute benefit of primary angioplasty also increased.     

Stenting versus thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction trial (STAT)

OBJECTIVES: We sought to directly compare primary stenting with accelerated tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) in patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND: Thrombolysis remains the standard therapy for AMI. However, at some institutions primary angioplasty is favored. Randomized trials have shown that primary angioplasty is equal or superior to thrombolysis, while recent studies demonstrate that stent implantation improves the results of primary angioplasty. METHODS: Patients presenting with AMI were randomly assigned to primary stenting (n = 62) or accelerated t-PA (n = 61). The primary end point was the composite of death, reinfarction, stroke or repeat target vessel revascularization (TVR) for ischemia at six months. RESULTS: The primary end point was significantly reduced in the stent group compared with the accelerated t-PA group, 24.2% versus 55.7% (p < 0.001). The event rates for other outcomes in the stent group versus the t-PA group were as follows: mortality: 4.8% versus 3.3% (p = 1.00); reinfarction: 6.5% versus 16.4% (p = 0.096); stroke: 1.6% versus 4.9% (p = 0.36); recurrent unstable ischemia: 9.7% versus 26.2% (p = 0.03) and repeat TVR for ischemia: 14.5% versus 49.2% (p < 0.001). The median length of the initial hospitalization was four days in the stent group and seven days in the t-PA group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with accelerated t-PA, primary stenting reduces death, reinfarction, stroke or repeat TVR for ischemia. In centers where facilities and experienced interventionists are available, primary stenting offers an attractive alternative to thrombolysis.     

Prognostic value of angiographic markers of myocardial reperfusion in patients treated with primary coronary angioplasty for anterior wall acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Modern therapy of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is aimed at rapid and persisting restoration of blood flow in an infarct-related artery (IRA). However, in some patients myocardial reperfusion is not achieved in spite of effective IRA recanalisation. Myocardial Blush Grade (MBG) is one of the angiographic markers useful for the detection of this phenomenon. AIM: To assess the prognostic value of MBG in patients with anterior AMI treated with primary angioplasty. METHODS: The study group consisted of 104 patients (74 males, 30 females, mean age 62+/-13 years) treated with primary angioplasty due to anterior ST-segment elevation AMI. MBG was assessed after the procedure. The mortality and major cardiovascular event (MACE) rates were analysed one and six months after AMI. RESULTS: Patients with preserved myocardial reperfusion following angioplasty (MBG 2-3, n=64 (61.5%)) had a trend towards lower one-month mortality and significantly reduced six-month mortality compared with 40 (38.5%) patients with an impaired (MBG 0-1) myocardial reperfusion (3% vs 12.5%, NS; and 6.25% vs 20%, p<0.05, respectively). The rate of MACE was significantly lower in patients with rather than without reperfusion both after one and six months of follow-up (9.4% vs 27.5%, p=0.027 and 12.5% vs 42.5%, p<0.001, respectively). Compared with patients with a high MBG score, patients with altered reperfusion more frequently had diabetes (30% vs 12.5%, p=0.04), hypertension (67.5% vs 45%, p=0.043), longer time from the onset of symptoms to balloon inflation (355.9+/-199 min vs 215.5+/-113 min, p<0.001) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction, measured 3 days after AMI (43.3%+/-8 vs 47.4%+/-9, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: MBG has a significant prognostic value in patients with anterior AMI treated with primary angioplasty. Diabetes, hypertension and long delay of treatment are associated with the impairment of myocardial reperfusion.     

Comparison of protective effects of preinfarction angina pectoris in acute myocardial infarction treated by thrombolysis versus by primary coronary angioplasty with stenting.

The protective effects of preinfarction angina were evaluated in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated by primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and stenting. We studied 613 patients with AMI. Group 1 (n = 306) was treated by conventional medical therapies and coronary thrombolysis and group 2 (n = 307) was treated by primary PTCA supported by stenting. Each group was subdivided into those with and without preinfarction angina within 24 hours before the onset of AMI. There was no significant difference in clinical characteristics between the subgroups of groups 1 and 2. In group 1, there were differences between patients with preinfarction angina (n = 84) and those without (n = 222) in in-hospital mortality (11% vs 18%), pump failure (Killip classes 3 and 4) (11% vs 21%, p <0.05), left ventricular ejection fraction at discharge (52 +/- 13% vs 48 +/- 14%, p <0.05), and peak creatine kinase (2,106 +/- 1,637 vs 2,764 +/- 2,154 U/L, p <0.02). In group 2, however, there was no significant difference between those with preinfarction angina (n = 82) and those without (n = 225) in mortality (6% vs 6%), pump failure (12% vs 12%), left ventricular ejection fraction (50 +/- 13% vs 50 +/- 13%) and peak creatine kinase (3,285 +/- 2,306 vs 3,291 +/- 2,262 U/L). Multivariate analysis indicated that preinfarction angina was an independent determinant of in-hospital death and pump failure in group 1, but not in group 2. We conclude that the protective effects of preinfarction angina in AMI are not evident in those treated by primary PTCA and stenting, possibly because of the overwhelming protective effects of complete coronary revascularization provided by primary PTCA and stenting.     

Thrombolysis increases the risk of free wall rupture in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

In spite of the progress made in acute angiographic evaluation and obtaining durable reperfusion of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the past two decades, cardiac free wall rupture (FWR) is still one of the causes of mortality following AMI. In this study, we evaluated the role of thrombolysis in the risk of FWR in AMI patients treated with acute percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Among 3,786 consecutive AMI patients seen between 1985 and 2003, 3,066 patients were treated by primary PCI or rescue PCI, with or without additional thrombolysis. FWR occurred in 24 of 3,066 patients (0.8%) treated by PCI; female gender (1.4% vs 0.6%, P=0.001), age >75 years, (1.4% vs 0.6%, P=0.001) left main coronary artery (LMCA)-related infarction, (4.5% vs all other arteries, P=0.015), and thrombolytic use (3.1% vs 0.4%, P<0.001) were all associated with higher rates of FWR by univariate analysis. In patients treated with PCI and thrombolysis, FWR occurred in 2.7% with optimal PCI results but in only 4.9% if PCI was unsuccessful (P=NS). The incidence of FWR in patients with optimal PCI without thrombolysis was 0.4% (P<0.001). Multivariable analysis identified thrombolytic use (odds ratio [OR]: 8.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.66-19.7, P<0.001), LMCA-related infarction (OR: 7.06, 95% CI: 1.89-26.4, P=0.004), and female gender (OR: 3.02, 95% CI: 1.27-7.21, P=0.013) as independent predictors of FWR. Thrombolysis is one of the contributing causes of FWR in AMI patients undergoing PCI, even when PCI is successful.     

Angiographic findings,time course of regional and global left ventricular function,and clinical outcome in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty

There is scarce information available about the outcome of diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). We sought to compare left ventricular (LV) function, and angiographic and clinical outcomes in diabetics versus nondiabetics with AMI treated with primary PTCA. This study examined 720 consecutive patients with AMI treated with primary PTCA, 102 of whom had diabetes. Six-month follow-up coronary angiography was obtained in 560 patients (88% of eligible patients). In a subgroup of 284 patients, LV function was serially determined by 2-dimensional echocardiography. During 6-month follow-up no significant differences were observed between diabetics and nondiabetics with regard to restenosis rates (31.6% vs 28.2%, p = 0.6), recovery of LV function (6-month wall motion score index: 1.8 +/- 0.7 vs 1.8 +/- 0.7, p = 0.88; 6-month LV ejection fraction: 48.5 +/- 12% vs 51.2 +/- 13%, p = 0.173), nonfatal re-AMI rates (2.9% vs 1.3%, p = 0.2), and target vessel revascularization rates (21.6% vs 16.8%, p = 0.2). Early and late mortality were higher in diabetics than in nondiabetic patients (8.8% vs 4.2%, p = 0.045 and 11.7% vs 5.5%, p = 0.016, respectively). By Cox analysis, diabetes was an independent predictor of both early (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1 to 5.3, p = 0.03) and late mortality (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.84, p = 0.017) as well as 6-month major adverse cardiac events (MACEs): death, re-AMI, target vessel revascularization (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.18, p = 0.03). Thus, diabetes is an independent predictor of clinical outcome even if PTCA is used as the primary reperfusion strategy.     

Combined revascularization strategy for acute myocardial infarction in patients with intracoronary thrombus: preceding intracoronary thrombolysis and subsequent mechanical angioplasty

Thrombus in the infarct-related artery is one of the limitations for flow restoration in primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The present study investigated the benefit of preceding intracoronary thrombolysis (ICT) by retrospectively analyzing acute phase flow restoration in 80 AMI patients with intracoronary thrombus: 40 undergoing primary PTCA alone (primary PTCA group) and 40 treated with preceding ICT plus PTCA (combined group). Acute phase Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade flow was as follows: TIMI 0/1: 35.0% vs 12.5% for the primary PTCA group and the combined group, p=0.06; TIMI 2: 7.5% vs 15.0%, p=NS; TIMI 3: 57.5% vs 72.5%, p=NS). In the subgroup analysis, it was also less in the combined group among 33 patients with a left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) lesion (42.1 % vs 7.1%, p=0.08), but not among the remaining 47 with either a right coronary artery or left circumflex artery lesion. The combined therapy may potentially provide better acute phase flow restoration in AMI patients with an intracoronary thrombus in a LAD lesion.     

Primary angioplasty with routine stenting compared with thrombolytic therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Prior studies have yielded conflicting data on the advantage of primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). These studies, however, were performed before the contemporary widespread use of intracoronary stents and glycoprotien IIb/IIIa antagonists.

Methods

We prospectively compared the outcome of 130 consecutive elderly patients (aged ≥70 years) with ST-elevation AMI who were admitted to 2 similar neighboring medical centers. Patients were assigned to receive either thrombolytic therapy with accelerated tissue-type plasminogen activator (center I) or primary angioplasty with routine stenting (center II).

Results

Of the patients assigned to receive primary angioplasty, 91% underwent stenting. At 6 months, patients treated with primary angioplasty, compared with those treated with thrombolytic therapy, had a lower incidence of reinfarction (2% vs 14%, P = .053) and revascularization for recurrent ischemia (9% vs 61%, P < .001) and a significant reduction in the prespecified combined end point of death, reinfarction, or revascularization for recurrent ischemia (29% vs 93%, P < .01). Primary angioplasty remained an independent predictor of the triple combined end point after controlling for potential covariables (relative risk 0.63, 95% CI 0.38-0.84). Major bleeding complications were also significantly reduced in the primary angioplasty group (0% vs 17%, P = .03).

Conclusions

Compared with thrombolysis, primary angioplasty with routine stenting in elderly patients with AMI is associated with better clinical outcomes and a lower risk of bleeding complications.     

Pre-Hospital Fibrinolysis Followed by Angioplasty or Primary Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The Long-Term Clinical Outcome

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing primary angioplasty and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) have shown an advantage for primary angioplasty. The long-term follow-up of pre-hospital fibrinolysis followed by elective or rescue coronary angioplasty versus primary angioplasty is not well established after acute myocardial infarction. This study sought to assess the long-term clinical outcome of patients with AMI having either received pre-hospital fibrinolysis optimized by coronary angioplasty or primary angioplasty. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis involving 318 patients who either underwent primary angioplasty ( n = 157) or received pre-hospital fibrinolysis followed by an angioplasty (rescue or elective) ( n = 161) within 6 hours of the onset of chest pain. RESULTS: The groups were similar regarding their baseline characteristics except for the ages. No difference was noted for in-hospital mortality (primary PTCA group: 2.48%, combined group: 2.54%; p = ns) with no increased risk of hemorrhage. The 3-year mortality was not significantly different in the two groups (9.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.15). Regarding major adverse cardiac events (29.5% vs. 37.5%; p = 0.23), reintervention (22.5% vs. 23.2%; p = 0.99) or target lesion revascularization (16.1% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.68), the groups were statistically similar. CONCLUSION: These data from real-life practice emphasize the safety and similar benefits on the long-term clinical outcome of AMI patients having undergone either pre-hospital fibrinolysis followed by angioplasty or primary angioplasty.     

Clinical practice of primary angioplasty for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction in Germany: results from the MITRA and MIR registries

The pooled data of two German AMI registries: the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) study and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR) were analysed in order to 1) describe current clinical practice of primary angioplasty in Germany, 2) compare the results of primary angioplasty with those of thrombolysis in the "real world" and 3) define subgroups of patients profiting probably most from primary angioplasty. Between 1994 and 1998, 20,306 AMI patients were included in the registries. At the 271 participating hospitals angioplasty facilities were available at 18.5%. Thrombolysis was still the most frequently used reperfusion therapy at hospitals without (96%) as well as hospitals with such facilities (55%). Transfer of AMI patients for angiography was performed in 3.6% of AMI patients admitted to hospitals without angioplasty facilities. A total of 9906 lytic eligible AMI patients with a pre-hospital delay of no more than 12 hours were treated with either primary angioplasty (n = 1327) or thrombolysis (n = 8579). Univariate analysis of hospital mortality showed a more favourable course for patients treated with primary angioplasty: 6.4% versus 11.3%, OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.43-0.67, p < 0.0001. This was confirmed by logistic regression analysis: multivariate OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.44-0.77, p < 0.0001. Primary angioplasty was associated with a lower mortality in all subgroups analysed. There was a significant correlation between mortality and the absolute risk reduction (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001) in the different subgroups, which showed an increasing absolute benefit of primary angioplasty compared to thrombolysis with increasing mortality risk.