PCI after lytic therapy: when and how?
European Heart Journal Supplements (Impact Factor: 15.8). 12/2008; 10(J). DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/sun056
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and thrombolysis are approved therapies in the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Many clinical trials have shown that primary PCI provides better results than thrombolysis for the STEMI treatment. However, the advantages of invasive approach over fibrinolytic therapy may be blunted by low availability of experienced centres offering 24 h/7 days primary PCI service and by delay to mechanical reperfusion due to prolonged transport. Current guidelines recommend that primary PCI should be performed by skilled professionals within less than 90 (120) min after first medical contact. In practice, these requirements prohibit a large number of STEMI patients from benefiting from primary PCI because of the lack of access to an established primary PCI centre at the site of first presentation and long anticipated interhospital transfer time. Many of them are treated with lytics and referred to angiography with subsequent PCI in different time mode. Current data support the strategy of immediate PCI after lytics than waiting for rescue PCI if lysis is non-effective. The purpose of this article is to review the current approaches to patients after fibrynolytic therapy referred for PCI for STEMI.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Acute efficacy and long-term prognostic differences between ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) and those treated with pre-intervention thrombolysis combined with back-up of facilitated PCI has not been evaluated in Japanese patients. The purpose of the present study was therefore to evaluate the differences between treatment with primary PCI (primary-PCI group) and pre-treatment with tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) combined with back-up of facilitated PCI (prior-t-PA group). Methods and results: One hundred and one patients with STEMI were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Patients in the prior-t-PA group were then divided into 2 further groups, the facilitated-PCI and prior-t-PA alone groups. The patency rate at initial angiography, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months, and the major adverse cardiac event (MACE)-free rate at 5 years were then compared between the groups. The patency rate and LVEF in the prior-t-PA group was significantly higher than in the primary-PCI group (69% vs 17% respectively, P<0.001; 61.6+/-9.5% vs 55.0+/-11.6%, respectively; P=0.01). The MACE-free rate in the prior-t-PA group, however, was lower than in the primary-PCI group (58.7% vs 80.9%; P=0.03). The MACE-free rate in the facilitated-PCI group was equal to that in the primary-PCI group (73.7% vs 80.9%; P=0.39), whereas the MACE-free rate in the prior-t-PA-alone group was significantly lower than in the primary-PCI group (48.1% vs 80.9%; P=0.01). Conclusions: Primary PCI is superior to pre-intervention thrombolysis for long-term prognosis. Moreover, facilitated PCI may be as effective as primary PCI in patients with STEMI.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In India, the prevalence of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is rising exponentially leading to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite advancement in reperfusion therapy (pharmacologic and interventional), the overall utilization, system of care and timely reperfusion remains suboptimal. JUSTIFICATION AND PURPOSE: Alarming treatment delays exist in patients presenting with chest pain observed in real-world and published evidences. Time to diagnose STEMI and initiation of reperfusion therapy at various first medical contacts in India is variable mandating immediate attention. We intend to provide evidence based explicit recommendations for practicing clinicians about time-dependent early management and the concept of pharmaco-invasive (PI) approach, contextualized to the situation in India. Pre-prepared guidance document by expert steering committee was discussed and commented by over 150 experts representing from 16 states in India at regional level. The moderators of these meetings arrived at a consensus on the evaluation and management of STEMI patients by PI approach to improve clinical outcomes. In addition to patient awareness and education for early symptom identification, education is required for general practitioners and physicians/intensivists to implement early time dependent STEMI management. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) is the gold standard, yet it remains inaccessible to majority of patients, hence early reperfusion by initial use of fibrinolytics is recommended followed by coronary intervention. Fibrinolytics are easily available, economical and evaluated in several clinical studies and hence we recommend a PI approach (early fibrinolysis followed by PCI 3-24 hours later). We recommend a time guided 'Protocol/Plan of Action' for early fibrinolysis and implementing a PI approach at the level of general practitioners, non-PCI hospitals/nursing homes with intensive care facility and in PCI capable centers. For STEMI patients with symptom duration < 6 hours, we suggest administration of fibrinolytics either tenecteplase (Grade1A), reteplase (Grade1B), alteplase (Grade1C) or streptokinase (Grade 2B) alongside contemporary adjunctive medical therapy for PI approach. The aim of this Consensus Statement is * To provide explicit recommendations for practicing clinicians about the early management of STEMI and concept of pharmaco-invasive approach * To provide recommendations based on the best available evidences, contextualized to the situation in India. It must be recognized that even when randomized clinical trials have been undertaken, treatment options may be limited by resources. The Cardiocare STEMI experts realize that the recommended diagnostic examinations and treatment options may not be available or affordable in all parts of India. Cost-effectiveness is becoming an increasingly important issue when deciding upon therapeutic strategies. As always with guidelines/consensus statement, they are not prescriptive. Clinical scenario and patients vary so much from one another that individual care is paramount, and there is still an important place for clinical judgment, experience, and common sense. The mandate of the Cardiocare STEMI expert consensus is to recommend evidence-based standards of care, related targets and strategies for implementation of standards in the management of STEMI. CONTEXT AND USE: This document should be taken as consensus recommendations by qualified experts, not as rigid rules. It comprises of published evidence and may not cover every eventuality; new evidence is published every day. Furthermore, this should not be used as a legal resource, as the general nature cannot provide individualized guidance for all patients under all clinical circumstances.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.