Rescue Angioplasty or Repeat Fibrinolysis After Failed Fibrinolytic Therapy for ST-Segment Myocardial Infarction

Human Heart Anoxia and Reperfusion Tissue (HEART) Model for the Rapid Study of Exosome Bound miRNA Expression As Biomarkers for Myocardial Infarction

Current biomarkers for myocardial infarction (MI) diagnosis are typically late markers released upon cell death, incapable of distinguishing between ischemic and reperfusion injury and can be symptoms of other pathologies. Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) have recently been proposed as alternative biomarkers for MI diagnosis; however, detecting the changes in the human cardiac miRNA profile during MI is extremely difficult. Here, to study the changes in miRNA levels during acute MI, a heart-on-chip model with a cardiac channel, containing human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-derived cardiomyocytes in human heart decellularized matrix and collagen, and a vascular channel, containing hiPSC-derived endothelial cells, is developed. This model is exposed to anoxia followed by normoxia to mimic ischemia and reperfusion, respectively. Using a highly sensitive miRNA biosensor that the authors developed, the exact same increase in miR-1, miR-208b, and miR-499 levels in the MI-on-chip and the time-matched human blood plasma samples collected before and after ischemia and reperfusion, is shown. That the surface marker profile of exosomes in the engineered model changes in response to ischemic and reperfusion injury, which can be used as biomarkers to detect MI, is also shown. Hence, the MI-on-chip model developed here can be used in biomarker discovery.

Diagnosis and management of acute coronary syndromes

Acute coronary syndromes are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in Australia. Outcomes are likely to be improved by rapid and accurate diagnosis, and early intervention

The development of high-sensitivity troponin assays has revealed previously unrecognised types of myocardial injury, for which conventional management guidelines for myocardial infarction may not confer similar benefits. The distinction between myocardial injury and myocardial infarction has therefore become increasingly important

Once the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction has been made, individualised acute reperfusion strategies including percutaneous coronary intervention or fibrinolytic therapy should be considered. Secondary prevention strategies should be implemented before hospital discharge

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients undergoing rescue PCI.

METHODS

Between 2010-2015, we randomly assigned 83 patients undergoing rescue PCI to bivalirudin (n = 42) or heparin ± GPIs (n = 41). The primary safety endpoint was any ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) bleeding at 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was infarct size measured by peak troponin levels as a multiple of the local upper reference limit (Tn/URL). Secondary endpoints included periprocedural change in haemoglobin adjusted for red cells transfused, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding, ST-segment recovery and infarct size determined by the Selvester QRS score.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated due to slow recruitment and futility after an interim analysis of 83 patients. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 6 (14%) patients in the bivalirudin group (4.8% GPIs) and 3 (7.3%) in the heparin ± GPIs group (54% GPIs) (risk ratio, 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-7.3, P = 0.48). Infarct size was similar between the two groups (mean Tn/URL, 730 [±675] for bivalirudin, versus 984 [±1585] for heparin ± GPIs, difference, 254, 95% CI, -283-794, P = 0.86). There was a smaller decrease in the periprocedural haemoglobin level with bivalirudin than heparin ± GPIs (-7.5% [±15] versus -14% [±17], difference, -6.5%, 95% CI, -0.83-14, P = 0.0067). The rate of complete (≥70%) ST-segment recovery post-PCI was higher in patients randomised to heparin ± GPIs compared with bivalirudin.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI reduces bleeding in rescue PCI could not be determined. Slow recruitment and futility in the context of lower-than-expected bleeding event rates led to the termination of this trial (ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12610000152022).

Rescue PCI in the management of STEMI: Contemporary results from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry

Background

Fibrinolysis is an important reperfusion strategy in the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when timely access to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is unavailable. Rescue PCI is generally thought to have worse outcomes than PPCI in STEMI. We aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes of patients with rescue PCI versus PPCI for treatment of STEMI.

Methods and results

Patients admitted with STEMI (excluding out-of-hospital cardiac arrest) within the Melbourne Interventional Group (MIG) registry between 2005 and 2018 treated with either rescue PCI or PPCI were included in this retrospective cohort analysis. Comparison of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and long-term mortality between the two groups was performed. There were 558 patients (7.1%) with rescue PCI and 7271 with PPCI. 30-day all-cause mortality (rescue PCI 6% vs. PPCI 5%, p = 0.47) and MACE (rescue PCI 10.3% vs. PPCI 8.9%, p = 0.26) rates were similar between the two groups. Rates of in-hospital major bleeding (rescue PCI 6% vs. PPCI 3.4%, p = 0.002) and 30-day stroke (rescue PCI 2.2% vs. PPCI 0.8%, p < 0.001) were higher following rescue PCI. The odds ratio for haemorrhagic stroke in the rescue PCI group was 10.3. Long-term mortality was not significantly different between the groups (rescue PCI 20% vs. PPCI 19%, p = 0.33).

Conclusions

With contemporary interventional techniques and medical therapy, rescue PCI remains a valuable strategy for treating patients with failed fibrinolysis where PPCI is unavailable and it has been suggested in extenuating circumstances where alternative revascularisation strategies are considered.

The Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Ethiopia: Emphasis on Revascularization

Cardiovascular diseases are number one cause of death worldwide. Over half of the cardiovascular diseases, 51%, are due to coronary artery disease. Coronary artery disease is a pathological process characterized by atherosclerotic plaque accumulation in the epicardial coronary arteries. Rupture of the fibrous cap of the plaque causes the majority of the deaths due to myocardial infarction. Angina pectoris is a discomfort in the chest or adjacent areas caused by myocardial ischemia usually precipitated by exertion. In acute coronary syndrome, the chest discomfort is either of low threshold or appears at rest and when it evolves on the background of established angina pectoris, the discomfort becomes more frequent and prolonged. Exercise electrocardiography which has been the most frequently used non-invasive test to diagnose obstructive coronary artery disease is currently shown to have inferior diagnostic performance compared with diagnostic imaging tests. The pivotal tests in patients presenting with clinical features of acute coronary syndrome are electrocardiography and determination of serum troponin I and/or T. Revascularization is the mainstay of treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome. In chronic coronary syndrome, on top of optimal medical treatment, revascularization reduces mortality in:- 1) left main stenosis, 2) three-vessel coronary artery disease, particularly with ejection fraction of less than 40%, 3) two vessel disease with more than 75% stenosis of the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery disease.

Current Perspectives on Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Cardiovascular Disease: A White Paper by the JAHA Editors

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has infected more than 3.0 million people worldwide and killed more than 200,000 as of April 27, 2020. In this White Paper, we address the cardiovascular co-morbidities of COVID-19 infection; the diagnosis and treatment of standard cardiovascular conditions during the pandemic; and the diagnosis and treatment of the cardiovascular consequences of COVID-19 infection. In addition, we will also address various issues related to the safety of healthcare workers and the ethical issues related to patient care in this pandemic.

2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology Guidelines on the Acute Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Focused Update on Regionalization and Reperfusion

Rapid reperfusion of the infarct-related artery is the cornerstone of therapy for the management of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Canada's geography presents unique challenges for timely delivery of reperfusion therapy for STEMI patients. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology STEMI guideline was developed to provide advice regarding the optimal acute management of STEMI patients irrespective of where they are initially identified: in the field, at a non-percutaneous coronary intervention-capable centre or at a percutaneous coronary intervention-capable centre. We had also planned to evaluate and incorporate sex and gender considerations in the development of our recommendations. Unfortunately, inadequate enrollment of women in randomized trials, lack of publication of main outcomes stratified according to sex, and lack of inclusion of gender as a study variable in the available literature limited the feasibility of such an approach. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to develop specific evidence-based recommendations for the early identification of STEMI patients, practical aspects of patient transport, regional reperfusion decision-making, adjunctive prehospital interventions (oxygen, opioids, antiplatelet therapy), and procedural aspects of mechanical reperfusion (access site, thrombectomy, antithrombotic therapy, extent of revascularization). Emphasis is placed on integrating these recommendations as part of an organized regional network of STEMI care and the development of appropriate reperfusion and transportation pathways for any given region. It is anticipated that these guidelines will serve as a practical template to develop systems of care capable of providing optimal treatment for a wide range of STEMI patients.

Comparison of antithrombotic agents during urgent percutaneous coronary intervention following thrombolytic therapy: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The optimal antithrombotic regimen for urgent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) following thrombolytic therapy for ST segment myocardial infarction (STEMI) is currently unknown.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients referred to our institution from January 2005 to July 2014 who underwent urgent PCI within 24 hr after receiving thrombolytic therapy. The patients were divided into three cohorts based on the anticoagulation strategy during PCI-bivalirudin, heparin alone or heparin plus Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI). The primary end point of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was defined as a composite of inpatient death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke. Net adverse clinical events (NACE) were defined as a combination of MACE plus major bleeding complications. Univariable, multivariable and propensity-weighted modeling were used to compare MACE and NACE between the three treatment groups.

RESULTS

A total of 695 patients met the inclusion criteria during the study period. In the univariable analysis, there was no significant difference treatment in MACE between the three groups (Bivalirudin: 1.2% vs. Heparin + GPI: 4.4%; Heparin alone: 2.7%, P = 0.11). In the reduced logistic regression model, compared to bivalirudin, the odds of NACE was significantly higher with heparin alone (OR: 3.58, 95% CI: 1.21, 10.54, P = 0.02) or with heparin plus GPI (OR: 9.0, 95% CI: 2.83, 28.64, P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

In STEMI patients undergoing PCI within 24 hr after thrombolytic therapy, bivalirudin was associated with a strong trend toward reduced bleeding complications as compared to heparin alone or heparin plus GPI. The optimal antithrombotic regiment for urgent PCI following thrombolytic therapy is currently unknown. Our study demonstrated that use of bivalirudin during PCI following thrombolytic therapy is associated with a trend toward reduced bleeding complications compared to heparin alone or heparin plus GPI. Large randomized trials of adjunctive anticoagulation during PCI in this complex post-thrombolytic population are warranted. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Antithrombotic treatment during coronary angioplasty after failed thrombolysis: strategies and prognostic implications. Results of the RESPIRE registry

Background

Thrombolysis is still used when primary angioplasty is delayed for a long time, but 25%–30% of patients require rescue angioplasty (RA). There are no established recommendations for antithrombotic management in RA. This registry analyzes regimens for antithrombotic management.

Methods

A retrospective, multicenter, observational registry of consecutive patients treated with RA at 8 hospitals. All variables were collected and follow-up took place at 6 months.

Results

The study included 417 patients. Antithrombotic therapy in RA was: no additional drugs 22.3%, unfractionated heparin (UFH) 36.6%, abciximab 15.5%, abciximab plus UFH 10.5%, bivalirudin 5.7%, enoxaparin 4.3%, and others 4.7%. Outcomes at 6 months were: mortality 9.1%, infarction 3.3%, definite or probable stent thrombosis 4.3%, revascularization 1.9%, and stroke 0.5%. Mortality was related to cardiogenic shock, age > 75 years, and anterior location. The stent thrombosis rate was highest with bivalirudin (12.5% at 6 months). The incidence of bleeding at admission was high (14.8%), but most cases were not severe (82% BARC ≤2). Variables independently associated with bleeding were: femoral access (OR 3.30; 95% CI 1.3–8.3: p = 0.004) and post-RA abciximab infusion (OR 2.26; 95% CI 1.02–5: p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Antithrombotic treatment regimens in RA vary greatly, predominant strategies consisting of no additional drugs or UFH 70 U/kg. No regimen proved predictive of mortality, but bivalirudin was related to more stent thrombosis. There was a high incidence of bleeding, associated with post-RA abciximab infusion and femoral access.

National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2016

INTRODUCTION

The modern care of suspected and confirmed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is informed by an extensive and evolving evidence base. This clinical practice guideline focuses on key components of management associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients with chest pain or ACS. These are presented as recommendations that have been graded on both the strength of evidence and the likely absolute benefit versus harm. Additional considerations influencing the delivery of specific therapies and management strategies are presented as practice points.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

This guideline provides advice on the standardised assessment and management of patients with suspected ACS, including the implementation of clinical assessment pathways and subsequent functional and anatomical testing. It provides guidance on the: diagnosis and risk stratification of ACS; provision of acute reperfusion therapy and immediate post-fibrinolysis care for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; risk stratification informing the use of routine versus selective invasive management for patients with non-ST segment elevation ACS; administration of antithrombotic therapies in the acute setting and considerations affecting their long term use; and implementation of an individualised secondary prevention plan that includes both pharmacotherapies and cardiac rehabilitation. Changes in management as a result of the guideline: This guideline has been designed to facilitate the systematic integration of the recommendations into a standardised approach to ACS care, while also allowing for contextual adaptation of the recommendations in response to the individual's needs and preferences. The provision of ACS care should be subject to continuous monitoring, feedback and improvement of quality and patient outcomes.

National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes 2016

INTRODUCTION

The modern care of suspected and confirmed acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is informed by an extensive and evolving evidence base. This clinical practice guideline focuses on key components of management associated with improved clinical outcomes for patients with chest pain or ACS. These are presented as recommendations that have been graded on both the strength of evidence and the likely absolute benefit versus harm. Additional considerations influencing the delivery of specific therapies and management strategies are presented as practice points.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

This guideline provides advice on the standardised assessment and management of patients with suspected ACS, including the implementation of clinical assessment pathways and subsequent functional and anatomical testing. It provides guidance on the: diagnosis and risk stratification of ACS; provision of acute reperfusion therapy and immediate post-fibrinolysis care for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; risk stratification informing the use of routine versus selective invasive management for patients with non-ST segment elevation ACS; administration of antithrombotic therapies in the acute setting and considerations affecting their long term use; and implementation of an individualised secondary prevention plan that includes both pharmacotherapies and cardiac rehabilitation. Changes in management as a result of the guideline: This guideline has been designed to facilitate the systematic integration of the recommendations into a standardised approach to ACS care, while also allowing for contextual adaptation of the recommendations in response to the individual's needs and preferences. The provision of ACS care should be subject to continuous monitoring, feedback and improvement of quality and patient outcomes.

Reperfusion Options for ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients with Expected Delays to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, only one-third of hospitals in the US have PCI availability 24/7. For non-PCI hospitals, transfer remains the optimal strategy. For expected delays of greater than 120 minutes, a pharmacoinvasive strategy is recommended. In patients with evidence of failed reperfusion or hemodynamic instability, immediate rescue PCI should be performed. All other patients should undergo routine cardiac catheterization and PCI within 24 hours after fibrinolysis. A pharmacoinvasive strategy is best implemented within an organized regional STEMI system with prospective standardized transfer protocols.

Evaluation and Management of ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction and Shock

Cardiogenic shock is the deadliest complication of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Prompt recognition and intervention are critical for patient survival. The diagnosis of cardiogenic shock is primarily a clinical one based on signs and symptoms of low cardiac output and heart failure, and can be confirmed with placement of a pulmonary arterial catheter. Vasopressor and inotropic therapies are typically required, and in severe cases, an intra-aortic balloon pump can provide additional haemodynamic support. Although mortality for cardiogenic shock associated with ST-elevation myocardial infarction remains high, early reperfusion strategies primarily via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery have led to improved outcomes.

Are cardiovascular trial results systematically different between North America and Europe? A study based on intra-meta-analysis comparisons

BACKGROUND

It is often assumed that differences in the efficacy of treatments between countries (or regions) will be neither negligible nor minor and therefore cannot be overlooked when assessing the potential benefit of treatments in one country (or region) on the basis of trials conducted in another country (or region).

AIM

To assess differences in the results of cardiovascular trials between Europe and North America on the basis of data from an extensive collection of trials.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted of Medline (from the year 2005 to 2008) and the Cochrane Library (from 2000 to 2008) for all meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials aimed at treating and preventing cardiovascular disease. Within each meta-analysis that satisfied given criteria, trial results were compared between Europe and North America with respect to a fatal and/or non-fatal endpoint by forming separate estimates of treatment efficacy for each of these continents.

RESULTS

The literature search found 59 meta-analyses that satisfied all the inclusion criteria. For most meta-analyses, it was the case that relative to the control, the intervention was more favoured in trials conducted in Europe than in North America with regard to both fatal endpoints (28 out of 43 meta-analyses) and non-fatal endpoints (28 out of 40 meta-analyses). However, it was only with regard to non-fatal endpoints that this imbalance turned out to be statistically significant at the 5% level (P=0.017). Also, the lack of statistically significant differences in trial results between Europe and North America within individual meta-analyses meant that it was not possible to determine for which types of intervention these intercontinental differences are likely to be more pronounced than others.

CONCLUSION

There is some evidence to support the theory that, relative to controls, interventions are more favoured in cardiovascular trials conducted in Europe than in North America, when treatment efficacy is measured in terms of a non-fatal endpoint. However, the overall support for systematic differences in cardiovascular trial results between Europe and North America is weak, which may be surprising given the amount of data collected.

Therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: reperfusion strategies, pharmacology and stent selection

OPINION STATEMENT

The estimated annual incidence of new and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) in the U.S. is 715,000 events. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the reperfusion strategy of choice in most patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Recent advances in percutaneous techniques and devices, including manual aspiration catheters and newer generation drug eluting stents and pharmacologic therapies, such as novel antiplatelets and anticoagulants have led to significant improvements in the acute and long-term outcomes for these patients. Implementation of community-wide systems directed to shorten treatment times tied to closely monitored quality improvement processes have led to further advances in STEMI care. Recent data suggests that transradial access for primary PCI is associated with improved outcomes. This contemporary review discusses the strategies for reperfusion, pharmacological therapy and stent selection process involved in STEMI.

Combination Antithrombotic Management of STEMI with Pharmacoinvasive Strategy, Primary PCI, or Rescue PCI

The mainstay of acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) emergent management consists of reperfusion therapy combined with antithrombotic treatment. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for STEMI. Rescue PCI consists of urgent transfer for PCI of patients with failed fibrinolysis. The pharmacoinvasive strategy consists of administration of fibrinolysis followed by immediate transfer to a PCI-capable hospital for routine early catheterization. This article provides an overview of data and recommendations on primary PCI, rescue PCI, and pharmacoinvasive strategy as well as of the antithrombotic regimens used to support STEMI reperfusion approaches.

New ST-depression: an under-recognized high-risk category of 'complete' ST-resolution after reperfusion therapy

AIM

It is not known if there is an association between resolution of ST-elevation to ST-depression following fibrinolysis and 30-day mortality.

METHODS

In an ECG substudy of HERO-2, which compared bivalirudin to unfractionated heparin following streptokinase in 12,556 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction ECGs were recorded at baseline and at 60 minutes after commencing fibrinolysis. The main outcome measure was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

Using summed ST-segment elevation and five categories of changes in the infarct leads, further ST-elevation, 0-30% ST-resolution, >30-70% (partial) ST-resolution, >70% (complete) ST-resolution, and new ST-depression occurred in 21.7, 24.9, 36.8, 14.8, and 1.8% of patients, with 30-day mortality of 12.3, 11.7, 8.0, 4.2, and 8.1%, respectively. For the comparison of new ST-depression with complete ST-resolution and no ST-depression, p<0.01 with 24-hour mortality 4.5 vs. 1.3%, respectively (p=0.0003). Patients with new ST-depression had similar peak cardiac enzyme elevations as patients with complete ST-resolution without ST-depression. On multivariate analysis including summed ST-elevation at baseline, age, sex, and infarct location, new ST-depression was a significant predictor of 30-day mortality (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.42-4.29).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with complete ST-resolution following fibrinolysis, new ST-depression at 60 minutes developed in 10.8% of patients. These patients had higher mortality than patients with complete ST-resolution without ST-depression and represent a high-risk group which could benefit from rapid triage to early angiography and revascularization as appropriate.

Is There Still a Role for Fibrinolysis in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction?

OPINION STATEMENT

Fibrinolysis had long been the reference treatment in patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). It was associated with a large reduction in mortality as compared with delayed or no reperfusion in patients managed early, within the first 2 hours from the onset of symptoms. Fibrinolysis also had well-known potential complications: cerebral haemorrhage, especially in patients beyond 75 years, and reinfarction. Primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) has overcome most of these limitations, but at a price: PCI-related delays that can reduce the expected benefit of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis. That primary PCI is today the treatment of choice in patients with STEMI is no longer discussed. However, fibrinolysis should still maintain a role in the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for three reasons. First, fibrinolysis is no longer a stand-alone treatment. Modern fibrinolytic strategies combine immediate fibrinolysis, loading dose of thienopyridines, and transfer to a PCI hospital for rescue or early PCI within 24 hours. These strategies capitalize on the hub-and-spoke networks that have, or should have, been built everywhere to implement primary PCI. The overall clinical results of these modern fibrinolytic strategies are now similar to those of primary PCI. Second, a substantial number of patients cannot be managed with primary PCI within the reasonable time thresholds set by the guidelines. In the case of long PCI-related delays, patients will benefit from fibrinolysis before or during transfer to a PCI hospital. Third, modern fibrinolytic strategies-immediate fibrinolysis followed by rescue or early PCI-may even offer the best results of all in a subset of patients. Patients of less than 75 years, managed within the first 2 hours and who cannot have immediate PCI, will fare better with a modern fibrinolytic strategy than with primary PCI. Guidelines advocate regional networks between hospitals with and without PCI capabilities, an efficient ambulance service and standardization of AMI management through shared protocols. These regional logistics of care are essential to take full advantage of fibrinolysis strategies. In order to check that these strategies are correctly applied, networks need ongoing registries, as well as benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives.

Lessons Learned from STEMI Clinical Trials

Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of the death in the United States. From 2009 to 2010, however, the rate of heart disease causing death decreased by 2.5% in part due to evolving techniques used to treat and prevent heart disease. Management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has evolved accordingly and the studies investigating treatment strategies that have led to an evidence-based approach are reviewed in this article.

Pharmacoinvasive Management

The goal of treatment of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is timely restoration of myocardial blood flow. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the treatment of choice for STEMI patients, as shown in multiple clinical trials. However, because of logistic constraints, timely primary PCI may not be possible for many STEMI patients, most of whom are treated with fibrinolysis. Debate continues as to whether, and when, patients treated with fibrinolysis should undergo subsequent PCI. Current data support the strategy of early routine PCI after fibrinolysis rather than the conservative standard-care approach or rescue PCI for failed lysis.

Management of acute coronary syndrome: achievements and goals still to pursue. Novel developments in diagnosis and treatment

Acute coronary syndromes contribute a substantial part of the global disease burden. To realize a reduction in mortality and morbidity, the management of patients with these conditions involves the integration of several different approaches. Timely delivery of appropriate care is a key factor, as the beneficial effect of reperfusion is greatest when performed as soon as possible. Innovations in antithrombotic therapy have also contributed significantly to improvements in the prevention of ischaemic complications. However, with the use of such treatment, an increase in the risk of bleeding is inevitable. Therefore, the greatest challenge is now to obtain an optimal balance between the prevention of ischaemic complications and the risk of bleeding. In this regard, identification of patients at highest risk of either one is essential.

Safety and efficacy of rescue angioplasty for ST-elevation myocardial infarction with high utilization rates of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Fibrinolytic therapies remain widely used for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and for "failed reperfusion," rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is guideline recommended to improve outcomes. However, these recommendations are based on data from an earlier era of pharmacotherapy and procedural techniques.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To determine factors affecting prognosis after rescue PCI, we studied 241 consecutive patients (median age 55 years, interquartile range [IQR] 48-65) undergoing procedures between 2001 and 2009 (53% anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction and 78% transferred). The median treatment-related times were 1.2 hours (IQR 0.8-2.2) from symptom onset to door, 2 hours (IQR 1.3-3.2) from symptom onset to fibrinolysis (93% tenecteplase), and 3.9 hours (IQR 3.1-5.2) from fibrinolysis to balloon. Procedural characteristics were stent deployment in 95% (11.6% drug eluting) and 78% glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use, and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 3 flow rates pre-PCI and post-PCI were 41% and 91%, respectively (P < .001). At 30 days, TIMI major bleeding occurred in 16 (6.6%) patients, and 23 (9.5%) patients received transfusions; nonfatal stroke occurred in 4 (1.7%) patients (2 hemorrhagic). Predictors of TIMI major bleeding were female gender (odds ratio 3.194, 95% CI 1.063-9.597; P = .039) and pre-PCI shock (odds ratio 3.619, 95% CI,1.073-12.207; P = .038). Mortality at 30 days was 6.2%, and 3.2% in patients without pre-PCI shock. One-year mortality was 8.2% (5.3% in patients without pre-PCI cardiogenic shock), 5.2% had reinfarction, and the target vessel revascularization rate was 6.4% (2.6% in arteries ≥ 3.5 mm in diameter). Pre-PCI shock, female gender, and post-PCI TIMI flow grades ≤ 2 were significant predictors of 1-year mortality on multivariable regression modeling, but TIMI major bleeding was not.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue PCI with contemporary treatments can achieve mortality rates similar to rates for contemporary primary PCI in patients without pre-PCI shock. Whether rates of bleeding can be reduced by different pharmacotherapies and interventional techniques needs clarification in future studies.

[Minimum salvaged myocardium after rescue percutaneous coronary intervention: quantification by cardiac magnetic resonance]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

When fibrinolysis fails in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction, they are referred for a rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there is still no evidence of how much myocardium potentially at risk we can actually salvage after rescue PCI.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients. Cardiac magnetic resonance was performed within 6 days. Myocardial necrosis was defined by the extent of abnormal late enhancement, myocardium at risk by extent of edema, and the amount of salvaged myocardium by the difference between myocardium at risk and myocardial necrosis. Finally, myocardial salvage index (MSI) resulted from the fraction (area-at-risk minus infarct-size)/area-at-risk.

RESULTS

The mean time elapsed between pain onset and fibrinolitic agent administration was 176 ± 113 min; time lysis-rescue=PCI 209 ± 122 min; time pain onset-PCI = 390 ± 152 min. The area at risk was 37% ± 13% and infarct size 34.5% ± 13%. Salvaged myocardium was 3% ± 4% and MSI 9 ± 8. Salvaged myocardium and MSI were similar between patients with the artery open on arrival at the catheterization lab (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] 3) and those with TIMI flow ≤ 2 (3.3% ± 3.6% and 8.2 ± 6.9 in TIMI 0-2 vs 3.0% ± 3.7% and 10.8 ± 10.9 in TIMI 3; P=.80 and 0.31, respectively). No significant difference was observed between patients who went through rescue PCI within a shorter time and those with longer delay times.

CONCLUSIONS

The myocardial salvage after rescue PCI quantified by cardiac magnetic resonance is very small. The long delay times between pain onset and the opening of the infarct-related artery with PCI are most probably the reason for such a minimal effect of rescue PCI.

Joint ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization

The Guidelines for Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) are the very first reported consensus document, by a writing committee balanced between non-interventional and interventional cardiologists as well as cardiac surgeons, on this specific issue. Given the strong impact that ischaemic heart disease has on the survival and quality of life of the individual as well as the economic implications for society, the importance of the ESC/EACTS guidelines is obvious.

Routine invasive management after fibrinolysis in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Background

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolysis are increasingly, and ever earlier, referred for routine coronary angiography and where feasible, undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to examine the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on which this approach is based.

Methods

We systematically searched EMBASE, Medline, and references of relevant studies. All contemporary RCTs (published since 1995) that compared systematic invasive management of STEMI patients after fibrinolysis with standard care were included. Relevant study design and clinical outcome data were extracted.

Results

Nine RCTs that randomized a total of 3320 patients were identified. All suggested a benefit from routine early invasive management. They were individually reviewed but important design variations precluded a formal quantitative meta-analysis. Importantly, several trials did not compare a routine practice of invasive management after fibrinolysis with a more selective 'ischemia-guided' approach but rather compared an early versus later routine invasive strategy. In the other studies, recourse to subsequent invasive management in the usual care group varied widely. Comparison of the effectiveness of a routine invasive approach to usual care was also limited by asymmetric use of a second anti-platelet agent, differing enzyme definitions of reinfarction occurring spontaneously versus as a complication of PCI, a preponderance of the 'soft' outcome of recurrent ischemia in the combined primary endpoint, and an interpretative bias when invasive procedures on follow-up were tallied as an endpoint without considering initial invasive procedures performed in the routine invasive arm.

Conclusions

Due to important methodological limitations, definitive RCT evidence in favor of routine invasive management following fibrinolysis in patients with STEMI is presently lacking.