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.     

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.     

Reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients

Although there has been great progress in reperfusion therapy, the role of coronary reperfusion for elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction has not been fully investigated. In general, mean age of the subjects in major trials was about 60 years old and approximately only 10 to 15% of patients were over age 75. On the other hand, large-scale registries such as the US national registry of myocardial infarction (NRMI) showed a higher prevalence of elderly (especially women) in the clinical setting. This discrepancy may be due to the fact that elderly patients with myocardial infarction have some difficulties in the treatment such as severe multi-vessel coronary lesions, non-cardiac complications and relatively high prevalence of adverse reactions to reperfusion therapy. Here we focus on the situation of elderly patients (especially those 75 years or older) with myocardial infarction in the "real world" clinical setting, showing the clinical changes and outcome of our registry in rural Japan: the Kochi AMI (KAMI) registry.     

Transfer for primary angioplasty in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction

A 52‐year‐old asymptomatic man, with cardiac risk factors of hypertension, Type II diabetes, hypertriglyceridemia, low HDL, obesity, and positive family history for early coronary artery disease (CAD), was referred to nuclear stress test. He exercised for 14 minutes, achieved his target heart rate, without any symptoms or ECG changes. Nuclear images were entirely normal. However, the patient was still concerned and anxious so he underwent CT angiography that revealed coronary narrowings. Next, he underwent coronary angiography with similar findings. The lesions were treated with stents. We present a case report to illustrate how newer technology such as CT angiography alters the way in which we diagnose CAD and decide on whether to pursue further invasive therapy.     

溶栓治疗老年人急性心肌梗死34例分析

目的观察老年人急性心肌梗死（ＡＭＩ）溶栓治疗的安全性和有效性。方法７１例７０岁以上老年ＡＭＩ患者分成溶栓组（３４例）和对照组（３７例），比较其临床结果。结果（１）梗死相关动脉（ＩＲＡ）的再通率溶栓组显著高于对照组（６１．８％及１３．５％，Ｐ＜０．０１）；（２）溶栓明显改善了老年ＡＭＩ患者的左室射血分数（６３％及５２％，Ｐ＜０．０５）；（３）溶栓显著降低了老年ＡＭＩ患者的住院病死率（３５．１％对１４．７％，Ｐ＜０．０５），降幅为２０．４％；（４）溶栓组发生出血并发症６例（皮肤淤斑４例，上消化道出血２例），无严重出血（无需输血）并发症及脑卒中发生。结论对无禁忌证的老年人ＡＭＩ进行溶栓治疗，可以增加其血管再通率、改善心功能及降低病死率。     

Combined thrombolytic therapy and coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

From September, 1983, to August, 1984, combined thrombolytic therapy and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was used to treat 22 cases of acute myocardial infarction. Initial coronary angiograms showed total obstruction in 13 and severe stenosis in 9. Intracoronary infusion of urokinase reopened 7 of 13 totally occluded lesions but left a residual severe stenosis. Coronary angioplasty opened all of the remaining totally obstructed lesions and decreased the stenosis in 14 of 16 stenosed lesions. These procedures were performed 0.5 to 24 hours after the onset of chest pain. Lesions were not successfully dilated in two patients, because of arterial dissection in one and rethrombus formation in the other. One patient died from progressive hypotension beginning during the procedure, despite technically successful coronary angioplasty. Eighteen of the 20 successfully dilated lesions were patent at repeat angiography performed 1 to 3 weeks later. One successfully dilated lesion occluded 8 days after the procedure and was redilated by a larger sized balloon.     

Explanation for the survival benefit of primary angioplasty over thrombolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction

Our study evaluated the interaction across mortality risk, time delay related to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and survival benefit of PCI over thrombolytic therapy (risk-time benefit analysis). Mortality risk and angioplasty-related time delay were independently correlated to 30-day survival benefit of primary angioplasty over lytic therapy. A PCI-related delay>60 minutes could be justified for high-risk patients.     

急诊冠状动脉腔内成形术与溶栓治疗急性心肌梗塞的临床分析

目的　探讨急诊冠状动脉腔内成形术 (PTCA)对急性心肌梗塞 (AMI)的临床疗效。方法　对 5 2例AMI患者行急诊PTCA治疗 (PTCA组 ) ,5 8例AMI患者行溶栓治疗 (溶栓组 ) ,比较两组住院和随诊期间的情况。结果　PTCA组住院期间死亡 3例 ,抢救成功率为 94 2 % ,平均住院天数为 14 6天(9 5± 4 2天 ) ,左室射血量数 (LVEF)为 45 5 %± 4 3% ;随诊 2～ 18个月 ,心绞痛发作 3例 ,择期再次PTCA 3例。溶栓组住院期间死亡 8例 ,抢救成功率为 86 2 % ,平均住院天数为 2 6 4天 (17 2± 7 5天 ) ,LVEF为 37 6 %± 6 2 % ;随诊 2～ 18个月 ,心绞痛发作 17例 ,行择期PTCA 17例。结论　急性心肌梗塞急诊PTCA可即时开通梗塞相关血管 (IRA) ,大大降低AMI的住院死亡率 (P <0 0 1) ,缩短住院天数 (P <0 0 1) ,有效保护心脏功能 (P <0 0 5 )。     

Effectiveness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared with that of thrombolytic therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Few data exist from a community-based perspective on the relative effectiveness of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared with thrombolytic therapy (TT) in elderly patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), particularly in the current era of coronary stents and newer antithrombotic agents.

Methods

We evaluated data from patients, aged ≥70 years, with STEMI who were enrolled in the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events study between April 1999, and September 2002.

Results

Of the 2975 elderly patients eligible for reperfusion therapy, 365 (12.7%) underwent primary PCI and 769 (26.7%) received TT. The median delay from hospital arrival to therapy was 105 minutes for primary PCI and 40 minutes for TT. Inhospital complications for primary PCI versus TT included mortality (13.5% vs 14.8%), reinfarction (1.1% vs 5.7%), composite of death or reinfarction (14.3% vs 18.7%), cardiogenic shock (11.3% vs 11.6%), major bleeding (8.6% vs 5.9%), and stroke (1.1% vs 2.8%). After adjustment for baseline differences and propensity score, patients receiving primary PCI showed a lower rate of reinfarction (odds ratio [OR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05-0.44) and mortality (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.96) and the composite of reinfarction or death (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.79), with no difference in other outcome measures.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that, compared with TT, primary PCI is associated with a decrease in reinfarction and mortality, with no change in other outcome measures, in elderly patients with STEMI. These findings from an observational registry require further confirmation in future randomized clinical trial assessing the optimal reperfusion strategy in the elderly cohort with STEMI.     

静脉溶栓治疗老年急性心肌梗死的临床分析

目的 探讨老年(≥75岁)急性心肌梗死患者静脉溶栓的疗效及安全性. 方法 将62例老年急性心肌梗死患者随机分为溶栓组和常规治疗组;溶栓组32例,采用尿激酶静脉溶栓加皮下注射小剂量低分子肝素钙.常规治疗组30例.除不用尿激酶及小剂量低分子肝素钙外,其余治疗均与溶栓组相同.结果 冠状动脉再通率溶栓组为65.6%(21/32),常规治疗组为16.7%(5/30),两组比较差异具有显著性(P<0.05);溶栓组病死率6.3%(2/32),而常规治疗组病死率为23.3%(7/30),两组比较具有显著差异性(P<0.05);两组无严重出血并发症,出血并发症比较差异无显著性(P>0.05). 结论 尿激酶静脉溶栓治疗老年急性心肌梗死可以提高冠状动脉再通率,降低死亡率和改善预后,是可行性治疗措施.     

Selection of patients with acute myocardial infarction for thrombolytic therapy

PURPOSE: To critically review the current recommendations regarding the eligibility of patients with myocardial infarction for thrombolytic therapy. DATA IDENTIFICATION: Relevant studies published from January 1980 to January 1990 were identified through a computerized search of the English-language literature using MEDLINE and by a manual search of the bibliographies of all identified articles. STUDY SELECTION: All randomized, controlled trials of intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina were reviewed. Smaller, observational studies and previous review articles were included when relevant to the discussion. DATA EXTRACTION: Key data were extracted from each article, including the proportions of patients eligible for thrombolysis, the reasons for exclusion from thrombolytic therapy, and the clinical outcomes of patients treated and of those excluded from treatment. The validity of certain exclusion criteria was examined using subgroup analysis from the large, randomized mortality trials of intravenous thrombolysis and observations from smaller, nonrandomized studies. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: To date, relatively few patients with myocardial infarction have been considered eligible for fibrinolytic therapy. In this group, both early and late mortality have been significantly reduced. Patients excluded from thrombolysis, however, continue to have a high early mortality. The data suggest that the potential benefits of this treatment might be extended to selected high-risk subgroups. In particular, the risk-benefit ratio may favor the inclusion of otherwise healthy elderly patients; certain patients presenting more than 6 hours after the onset of symptoms; and patients with a history of controlled systolic hypertension or brief, nontraumatic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The data do not support the use of fibrinolytic therapy as primary treatment in patients with unstable angina or suspected myocardial infarction in the absence of confirmatory electrocardiographic changes. CONCLUSIONS: The full potential of thrombolytic therapy to alter the natural history of acute myocardial infarction can only be realized through the continued evaluation of selection criteria and the identification and treatment of the greatest possible number of eligible patients.     

Comparison of mortality benefit of immediate thrombolytic therapy versus delayed primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) yields superior mortality outcomes compared with thrombolysis in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) but takes longer to administer. Previous meta-regressions have estimated that a procedure-related delay of 60 minutes would nullify the benefits of PPCI on mortality. Using a combined database from randomized clinical trials and registries (n = 2,781) and an independently developed model of mortality risk in STEMI, we developed logistic regression models predicting 30-day mortality for PPCI and thrombolysis by examining the influence of baseline risk on the treatment effect of PPCI and on the hazard of treatment delay. We used these models to solve mathematically for "time interval to mortality equivalence," defined as the PPCI-related delay that would nullify its expected mortality benefit over thrombolysis, and to explore the influence of baseline risk on this value. As baseline risk increases, the relative benefit of PPCI compared with thrombolytic therapy significantly increases (p = 0.002); patients with STEMI at relatively low risk of mortality accrue little or no incremental mortality benefit from PPCI, but high-risk patients benefit greatly. However, as baseline risk increases, the hazard associated with longer treatment-related delay also increases (p = 0.007). These 2 effects are compensatory and yield a roughly uniform time interval to mortality equivalence of approximately 100 minutes in patients who have at least a moderate degree of mortality risk (> approximately 4%). In conclusion, the mortality benefits of PPCI and the hazard of PPCI-related delay depend on baseline risk. Previous meta-regressions appear to have underestimated the PPCI-related delay that would nullify the incremental benefits of PPCI.