Dataset Information

Assessing the effectiveness of primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis and its relationship to time delay: a Bayesian evidence synthesis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Meta-analyses of trials have shown greater benefits from angioplasty than thrombolysis after an acute myocardial infarction, but the time delay in initiating angioplasty needs to be considered.

Objective

To extend earlier meta-analyses by considering 1- and 6-month outcome data for both forms of reperfusion. To use Bayesian statistical methods to quantify the uncertainty associated with the estimated relationships.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2003 was updated. Data on key clinical outcomes and the difference between time-to-balloon and time-to-needle were independently extracted by two researchers. Bayesian statistical methods were used to synthesise evidence despite differences between reported follow-up times and outcomes. Outcomes are presented as absolute probabilities of specific events and odds ratios (ORs; with 95% credible intervals (CrI)) as a function of the additional time delay associated with angioplasty.

Results

22 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with 3760 and 3758 patients randomised to primary angioplasty and thrombolysis, respectively. The mean (SE) angioplasty-related time delay (over and above time to thrombolysis) was 54.3 (2.2) minutes. For this delay, mean event probabilities were lower for primary angioplasty for all outcomes. Mortality within 1 month was 4.5% after angioplasty and 6.4% after thrombolysis (OR = 0.68 (95% CrI 0.46 to 1.01)). For non-fatal reinfarction, OR = 0.32 (95% CrI 0.20 to 0.51); for non-fatal stroke OR = 0.24 (95% CrI 0.11 to 0.50). For all outcomes, the benefit of angioplasty decreased with longer delay from initiation.

Conclusions

The benefit of primary angioplasty, over thrombolysis, depends on the former's additional time delay. For delays of 30-90 minutes, angioplasty is superior for 1-month fatal and non-fatal outcomes. For delays of around 90 minutes thrombolysis may be the preferred option as assessed by 6-month mortality; there is considerable uncertainty for longer time delays.

SUBMITTER: Asseburg C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2000960 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe role of immediate transfer for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after thrombolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction remains controversial. We performed a systematic review of the related literature to determine whether thrombolysis followed by transfer for immediate or early PCI is safe, feasible and superior to conservative management.MethodsA systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the American Heart Association EndNote 7 Master Library databases, was performed to 2004 for relevant published studies. The level of evidence and the quality of the study design and methods were rated by 2 reviewers according to a standardized classification. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to assess the effect at 6-12 months on mortality of immediate or early PCI after thrombolysis.ResultsWe found 13 articles that were supportive of immediate or early PCI after thrombolysis and 16 that were neutral or provided evidence opposing it. The largest randomized trials and meta-analyses showed no benefit of routine PCI immediately or shortly after thrombolysis. The studies that were supportive were generally more recent and more frequently involved coronary stents. One large trial supported early PCI after thrombolysis for patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Overall, the difference in mortality rates between the invasive strategy and conservative care was nonsignificant. The 3 stent-era trials showed a significantly lower mortality among patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy (5.8% v. 10.0%, odds ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.32-0.92). Analysis of variance found a significant difference in treatment effect between stent-era and pre-stent-era trials.InterpretationAt present, there is inadequate evidence to recommend routine transfer of patients for immediate or early PCI after successful thrombolysis. Results of recent trials using contemporary PCI techniques, including coronary stents, appear more favourable but need to be confirmed in large randomized trials, which are currently in progress. Transfer for immediate PCI is recommended for patients with cardiogenic shock, hemodynamic instability or persistent ischemic symptoms after thrombolysis.

Project description:Better outcomes are obtained with stroke thrombolysis the more rapidly it is given, both in terms of the patient's level of functional ability and also mortality. Current UK performance targets (outside London) aim for a time of 45 minutes or less. Thrombolysis pathways involve multidisciplinary working across departmental boundaries as well as senior level decision making. Our system used telemedicine out of hours adding additional complexity to the pathway. The initial planning stages started by auditing current practice and mapping the existing pathway. The figures for door to needle times were held on a database on the stroke unit and collected in detail for the purposes of national reporting. The pathway was mapped by combining personal experience of working within the stroke service with the experiences of the general medical registrars who worked the system out of hours. The initial action was to present this information throughout the hospital at departmental meetings. Opinions were canvassed at these meetings on where the biggest barriers were within the pathway and how we could address them. An awareness campaign was held by advertising over the intranet. An intervention comprising the following elements was introduced over the period of a year: introduction of an ambulance pre-alert, revision of the existing pathway, and education to all those involved in thrombolysis. The cases where particularly long delays were noted were audited in more depth to identify barriers to flow through the system. This was reported in ward meetings for staff to contribute experience and to offer solutions. We went to commissioning group meetings to gain the support of the local ambulance service, and talked to A&E seniors about the project and the ways in which they could help. Median times were calculated from a stroke database. There was a fall in median door to needle time of 65.5 to 49 minutes over a period of 18 months. A complex intervention to improve door to needle time can and did produce good results with a reduction in times to within the London performance standards of care. The efficacy could be improved with an increased staffing level and provision of a formal setting within which to discuss changes and to keep up the momentum of change.