Dataset Information

Outcomes after delayed primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs. pharmaco-invasive strategy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Norway.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) provided it can be performed within 120 min from diagnosis. However, it is unclear whether pPCI or a pharmaco-invasive (P-I) strategy is the best choice in patients who cannot receive timely pPCI. The aim of the present study was to compare outcomes after delayed and late pPCI vs. a P-I strategy in STEMI patients who did not receive timely pPCI.

Methods and results

All patients with STEMI registered in the Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Registry (NORMI) between 2013 and 2019, with ≤12 h from symptom onset to first medical contact and available timelines were included in the study. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and follow-up was through 2019. A total of 21 121 (27% of 78 368) STEMI patients were registered in the NORMI. Among patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7238 (54%) patients underwent timely pPCI, 1537 (11%) delayed pPCI (121-180 min), 1012 (7%) late pPCI (>180 min), and 2338 (17%) patients were treated with a P-I strategy. After a median follow-up time of 2.5 years, mortality was higher in the delayed pPCI [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.5] and in the late pPCI group (adjusted HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7) compared to the P-I strategy group, but bleeding complications were more frequent after P-I strategy.

Conclusions

In STEMI patients who did not receive timely percutaneous coronary intervention, a P-I strategy seemed to be associated with better long-term survival compared to delayed/late pPCI.

SUBMITTER: Jortveit J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9366642 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes after delayed primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs. pharmaco-invasive strategy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Norway.

Jortveit Jarle J Pripp Are Hugo AH Halvorsen Sigrun S

European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy 20220801 5

<h4>Aims</h4>Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) provided it can be performed within 120 min from diagnosis. However, it is unclear whether pPCI or a pharmaco-invasive (P-I) strategy is the best choice in patients who cannot receive timely pPCI. The aim of the present study was to compare outcomes after delayed and late pPCI vs. a P-I strategy in STEMI patients who did not rece ...[more]

PMID: 34038535

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:Background and aimsThe long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease remain debated.MethodsThe Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies registry was used to analyse 57 097 revascularized patients with NSTEMI with multivessel disease in Sweden from January 2005 to June 2022. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, encompassing both in-hospital and long-term mortality; the secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, new revascularization, and heart failure. Multilevel logistic regression with follow-up time as a log-transformed offset variable and double-robust adjustment with the instrumental variable method were applied to control for known and unknown confounders.ResultsPercutaneous coronary intervention was the primary therapy in 42 190 (73.9%) patients, while 14 907 (26.1%) received CABG. Percutaneous coronary intervention patients were generally older with more prior cardiovascular events, whereas CABG patients had higher incidences of diabetes, hypertension, left main and three-vessel disease, and reduced ejection fraction. Over a median follow-up of 7.1 years, PCI was associated with higher risks of death [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54-1.81] and MI (aOR 1.51; 95% CI 1.41-1.62) but there was no significant difference in stroke. Repeat revascularization was three times more likely to PCI (aOR 3.01; 95% CI 2.57-3.51), while heart failure risk was 15% higher (aOR 1.15; 95% CI 1.07-1.25). Coronary artery bypass grafting provided longer survival within 15 years, especially in patients under 70 years of age, with left main disease or left ventricular dysfunction, though this benefit diminished over shorter time horizons.ConclusionsCoronary artery bypass grafting is associated with lower risks of mortality, MI, repeat revascularization, and heart failure in patients with NSTEMI, particularly in high-risk subgroups. However, its survival benefit lessens with shorter life expectancy.

Dataset Information

Outcomes after delayed primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs. pharmaco-invasive strategy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Norway.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Outcomes after delayed primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs. pharmaco-invasive strategy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Norway.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets