Risk assessment in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with thrombolytic therapy |
| |
Authors: | M. Jensen-Urstad,B. A. Samad,K. Jensen-Urstad,J. Hulting,H. Ruiz,F. Bouvier,& J. Hö jer |
| |
Affiliation: | Department of Cardiology, Karolinska Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. mats.jensen-urstad@medks.ki.se |
| |
Abstract: | OBJECTIVE: Several noninvasive methods have prognostic information regarding mortality and new coronary events after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The practical for clinical decision-making in the immediate postmyocardial infarction (MI) period is, however, less evident. We investigated consecutive patients with AMI treated with thrombolysis to further clarify this issue. DESIGN: A total of 100 patients (27% women) aged 64 +/- 9 years (mean +/- SD) were studied. Risk assessment based on a clinical score system, myocardial perfusion scintigraphy single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) at rest and during adenosine stress, echocardiography, radionuclide angiography, symptom-limited exercise stress test, and 24-h Holter ECG recording with ST-analysis and analysis of heart rate variability (HRV) were performed 5-8 days after hospital admission. Mortality, nonfatal reinfarction, and the need for revascularization were followed during 12 months. SETTING: A university hospital. RESULTS: A total of 6 patients died, seven had a nonfatal reinfarction, and 23 were revascularized. Inability to perform an exercise test (P = 0.004) and an ejection fraction (EF) < 40% (P = 0.002) were the only parameters separating those who died from the survivors. No method could predict a nonfatal reinfarction. Patients suffering either death or nonfatal reinfarction had a clinical risk assessment score 2 points higher (8.8 vs. 6.7, P = 0.05) than the group without such events. A positive symptom-limited exercise stress test (P = 0.027), ST-depressions on Holter ECG (P = 0.04), and reversibility on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (P = 0.029) predicted the need for revascularization. CONCLUSION: Risk assessment based on clinical information, exercise stress testing, and an estimate of left ventricular function (e.g. via echocardiography) contribute with prognostic information in thrombolysed MI-patients. Additional noninvasive investigations such as adenosine-SPECT, analysis of HRV, and Holter-monitoring do not add to these commonly available tools in risk stratification of subjects at low to medium risk. |
| |
Keywords: | myocardial infarction prognosis risk assessment thrombolysis |
|
|