Dataset Information

Long-term ischaemic and bleeding outcomes after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction in the elderly.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The population is ageing rapidly and the proportion of patients aged ≥ 80 years undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is rising, but clinical trials have primarily been performed in younger patients.

Methods

Patients undergoing primary PCI between 2003 and 2008 were subdivided into 3 groups: < 60, 60-79, and ≥ 80 years. Endpoints at 3-year follow-up included all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (reMI), stent thrombosis, target lesion revascularisation (TLR), bleeding (BARC bleeding ≥ 3), stroke, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of cardiac mortality, reMI, stroke and TLR).

Results

2002 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were included, 885 (44.2 %) aged < 60, 921 (46.0 %) 60-79, and 196 (9.7 %) ≥ 80 years. Comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, prior stroke, malignant disease, anaemia, and chronic kidney disease were more prevalent in patients ≥ 80 years. The incidence of both ischaemic and bleeding events strongly increased with age. Age ≥ 80 years was an independent predictor of mortality (HR 2.56, 95 % CI1.69-3.87, p < 0.001), a borderline non-significant predictor of overall bleeding (HR 1.38, 95 %CI 0.95-2.00, p = 0.088), and a significant predictor of non-access site bleeding (HR 2.26, 95 %CI 1.46-3.51, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patients ≥ 80 years experienced high rates of ischaemic and bleeding complications; especially in this high-risk patient group individualised therapy is needed to optimise clinical outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Claessen BEPM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4580666 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThere are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI-CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI-CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).MethodsUsing the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI-CS admissions receiving pre-hospital/in-hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI-CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality, development of non-cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do-not-resuscitate status.ResultsDuring 2009-2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non-White, with lower co-morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all-cause in-hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity-matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90-1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do-not-resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs.ConclusionsThe use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in-hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI-CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) has been widely recognized as the preferred treatment for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, substantial numbers of STEMI patients cannot receive timely PPCI. Early fibrinolysis followed by routine percutaneous coronary intervention (FPCI) has been proposed as an effective and safe alternative for eligible patients. To date, few studies have compared FPCI with PPCI in terms of microvascular reperfusion. This study aimed to evaluate the microvascular function of FPCI and PPCI.MethodsSTEMI patients at the Peking University First Hospital and Miyun Hospital were enrolled in this retrospective study between January 2015 to December 2020. Microvascular function documented by the coronary angiography-derived index of microvascular resistance (caIMR) was measured at the final angiogram after revascularization. The primary end point was the caIMR of the culprit vessels. The secondary end points were in-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, non-fatal recurrent myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization (TVR), and non-fatal stroke/transient ischemic attacks (TIA). Details of the adverse clinical events were obtained from telephone interviews and electronic medical record systems until January 2022.ResultsIn total, 496 STEMI patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional retrospective study. Of these patients, 81 underwent FPCI, and 415 underwent PPCI. At the baseline, the PPCI patients had a higher-risk profile than the FPCI patients. The time from symptom onset to reperfusion therapy was significantly shorter in the FPCI group than the PPCI group (median 3.0 vs. 4.5 hours; P<0.001). The caIMR was significantly lower in the FPCI group than the PPCI group (median 20.34 vs. 40.33; P<0.001). The median follow-up duration was 4.1 years. During the follow-up period, the rate of MACE was lower in the FPCI group than the PPCI group [7 (10.1%) vs. 82 (20.8%), P=0.048]. After propensity score matching to adjust for the imbalances at the baseline, the caIMR remained significant and the clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionsIn eligible STEMI patients, clinically successful FPCI may be associated with better microvascular reperfusion and comparable clinical outcomes as compared with PPCI.

Project description:Preinfarction angina may act as a clinical surrogate of ischemic preconditioning that may reduce infarct size and improve mortality in the setting of thrombolytic therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. However, the benefits of preinfarction angina in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting is inconclusive because of the greater achievement of infarct artery patency and speed of reperfusion.To identify a homogeneous population, we performed a retrospective analysis of 1031 patients admitted with a first ST-elevation myocardial infarction with ischemic times between 1 and 6 hours who received primary percutaneous coronary intervention. We identified 245 patients who had occluded arteries on presentation, of which 79 patients had documented preinfarction angina defined as chest pain within 24 hours of infarction. Infarct size was measured as the peak creatine kinase level, a metric supported in a subgroup by late enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Patients with preinfarction angina (n=79) had a 50% reduction in infarct size compared with those patients without preinfarction angina (n=166) by both peak creatine kinase (1094±75 IU/L versus 2270±102 IU/L; P<0.0001) and creatine kinase area under curve (18 420±18 941 versus 36 810±21 741 IU/h per liter; P<0.0001) despite having identical ischemic times (185±8 minutes versus 181±5 minutes; P=0.67) and angiographic area at risk (24.1±1.2% versus 25.3±0.9%; P=0.43). There was an absolute 4% improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction before discharge in those patients with preinfarction angina (P<0.02).The occurrence of preinfarction angina is associated with significant myocardial protection in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting during ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Because preinfarction angina is relatively common, it is important that these patients be identified in clinical trials investigating therapies designed to reduce reperfusion injury and infarct size.

Project description:Background:High survival rates are commonly reported following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, with most contemporary studies reporting overall survival.Aims:The aim of this study was to describe survival following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction corrected for non-cardiovascular deaths by reporting relative survival and investigate clinically significant factors associated with poor long-term outcomes.Methods and results:Using the prospective UK Percutaneous Coronary Intervention registry, primary percutaneous coronary intervention cases ( n=88,188; 2005-2013) were matched to mortality data for the UK populace. Crude five-year relative survival was 87.1% for the patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and 94.7% for patients <55 years. Increasing age was associated with excess mortality up to four years following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (56-65 years: excess mortality rate ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.46-1.79; 66-75 years: 2.49, 2.26-2.75; >75 years: 4.69, 4.27-5.16). After four years, there was no excess mortality for ages 56-65 years (excess mortality rate ratio 1.27, 0.95-1.70), but persisting excess mortality for older groups (66-75 years: excess mortality rate ratio 1.72, 1.30-2.27; >75 years: 1.66, 1.15-2.41). Excess mortality was associated with cardiogenic shock (excess mortality rate ratio 6.10, 5.72-6.50), renal failure (2.52, 2.27-2.81), left main stem stenosis (1.67, 1.54-1.81), diabetes (1.58, 1.47-1.69), previous myocardial infarction (1.52, 1.40-1.65) and female sex (1.33, 1.26-1.41); whereas stent deployment (0.46, 0.42-0.50) especially drug eluting stents (0.27, 0.45-0.55), radial access (0.70, 0.63-0.71) and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (0.67, 0.60-0.75) were protective.Conclusions:Following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, long-term cardiovascular survival is excellent. Failure to account for non-cardiovascular death may result in an underestimation of the efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.