Reduced-Dose Fibrinolytic Acceleration of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treatment Coupled With Urgent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Compared to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Alone

Preoperative Variables of 30-Day Mortality in Adults Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Risk adjustment following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is vital for clinical quality registries, performance monitoring, and clinical decision-making. There remains significant variation in the accuracy and nature of risk adjustment models utilised in international PCI registries/databases. Therefore, the current systematic review aims to summarise preoperative variables associated with 30-day mortality among patients undergoing PCI, and the other methodologies used in risk adjustments.

METHOD

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases until October 2022 without any language restriction were systematically searched to identify preoperative independent variables related to 30-day mortality following PCI. Information was systematically summarised in a descriptive manner following the Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist. The quality and risk of bias of all included articles were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. Two independent investigators took part in screening and quality assessment.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2,941 studies, of which 42 articles were included in the final assessment. Logistic regression, Cox-proportional hazard model, and machine learning were utilised by 27 (64.3%), 14 (33.3%), and one (2.4%) article, respectively. A total of 74 independent preoperative variables were identified that were significantly associated with 30-day mortality following PCI. Variables that repeatedly used in various models were, but not limited to, age (n=36, 85.7%), renal disease (n=29, 69.0%), diabetes mellitus (n=17, 40.5%), cardiogenic shock (n=14, 33.3%), gender (n=14, 33.3%), ejection fraction (n=13, 30.9%), acute coronary syndrome (n=12, 28.6%), and heart failure (n=10, 23.8%). Nine (9; 21.4%) studies used missing values imputation, and 15 (35.7%) articles reported the model's performance (discrimination) with values ranging from 0.501 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.472-0.530) to 0.928 (95% CI 0.900-0.956), and four studies (9.5%) validated the model on external/out-of-sample data.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk adjustment models need further improvement in their quality through the inclusion of a parsimonious set of clinically relevant variables, appropriately handling missing values and model validation, and utilising machine learning methods.

The comparison of procedural and clinical outcomes of thrombolytic-facilitated and primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): Findings from PROVE/ACS study

BACKGROUND

There is still a controversy in the preferred method of reperfusion in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), when the achievement of well-defined "golden time" is difficult. We sought to evaluate the procedural and in-hospital outcomes of the strategy of "thrombolytic administration and rescue or routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)" versus "primary PCI (PPCI)" strategy in acute STEMI.

METHODS

In this observational prospective study, the data of 237 patients with acute STEMI presented or referred to Chamran Cardiovascular Research Center in Isfahan, Iran, were collected (PROVE/ACS study). Baseline characteristics, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade of infarct-related artery (IRA), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and in-hospital outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 61.4 ± 13.0 years, 86.9% were men, 13.1% were diabetic, and 67.9% had anterior STEMI. Patients in the "thrombolytic then PCI" group were younger, more smoker, more often male with higher body weight and lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). The pre-PCI TIMI flow grade 3 was more often seen in the "thrombolytic then PCI" group (39.4% vs. 21.0%, P < 0.001) and less thrombectomy was performed in this group of patients (12.9% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.011). Time to reperfusion was significantly longer in PPCI group (182.4 ± 233.7 minutes vs. 44.6 ± 93.4 minutes, respectively, P < 0.001). No difference in mortality, mean of LVEF, and incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was observed in two groups.

CONCLUSION

If the PPCI strategy could not be performed in the golden time, the strategy of thrombolytic administration and rescue or routine PCI leads to more initial IRA patency and less thrombectomy with similar clinical outcomes.

Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Treatment Delays in Patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and its associated restrictions could affect ischemic times in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of the COVID-19 outbreak on ischemic times in consecutive all-comer STEMI patients. We included consecutive STEMI patients (n = 163, median age: 61 years, 27% women) who were referred to seven tertiary care hospitals across Austria for primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 24 February 2020 (calendar week 9) and 5 April 2020 (calendar week 14). The number of patients, total ischemic times and door-to-balloon times in temporal relation to COVID-19-related restrictions and infection rates were analyzed. While rates of STEMI admissions decreased (calendar week 9/10 (n = 69, 42%); calendar week 11/12 (n = 51, 31%); calendar week 13/14 (n = 43, 26%)), total ischemic times increased from 164 (interquartile range (IQR): 107-281) min (calendar week 9/10) to 237 (IQR: 141-560) min (calendar week 11/12) and to 275 (IQR: 170-590) min (calendar week 13/14) (p = 0.006). Door-to-balloon times were constant (p = 0.60). There was a significant difference in post-interventional Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3 in patients treated during calendar week 9/10 (97%), 11/12 (84%) and 13/14 (81%; p = 0.02). Rates of in-hospital death and re-infarction were similar between groups (p = 0.48). Results were comparable when dichotomizing data on 10 March and 16 March 2020, when official restrictions were executed. In this cohort of all-comer STEMI patients, we observed a 1.7-fold increase in ischemic time during the outbreak of COVID-19 in Austria. Patient-related factors likely explain most of this increase. Counteractive steps are needed to prevent further cardiac collateral damage during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Annual Trends in Total Ischemic Time and One-Year Fatalities: The Paradox of STEMI Network Performance Assessment

This study is aimed at assessing trends and relations between total ischemic time, the major quality measure of systemic delay, and case-fatality at the population or patient level in response to growing cardiovascular risk and a constant need to shorten the time to treatment in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Data from a prospective nationwide registry of STEMI patients admitted between 2006 and 2013 who were treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were analyzed. Total ischemic time was calculated as the time from the onset of symptoms to primary PCI and was determined as individual and annual. The primary end-point was one-year, all-cause case-fatality. Among the total 70,093 analyzed patients, temporal trends showed significant decrease in total ischemic time (268 vs. 230 minutes, p < 0.001), a worsening of the risk profile and an increase in one-year case-fatality (7.1% vs. 10.8%, p < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, longer individual total ischemic time was a risk factor for higher mortality (HR 1.024, 95%CI 1.015–1.034, p < 0.001) and remained significant after adjustment for the year of admission. An inverse relation was observed for the median annual time (HR 0.992, 95%CI 0.989–0.994, p < 0.001). Thus, the observed increasing annual trends in case-fatality cannot directly measure the quality of STEMI network performance.

Management Strategies and Outcomes of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Transferred After Receiving Fibrinolytic Therapy in the United States

Fibrinolytic therapy is still used in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when the primary percutaneous coronary intervention cannot be provided in a timely fashion. Management strategies and outcomes in transferred fibrinolytic-treated STEMI patients have not been well assessed in real-world settings. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2008 to 2012, we identified 18 814 patients with STEMI who received fibrinolytic therapy and were transferred to a different facility within 24 hours. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal bleeding, bleeding requiring transfusion, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), length of stay, and cost. The patients were divided into 3 groups: those who received medical therapy alone (n = 853; 4.5%), those who underwent coronary artery angiography without revascularization (n = 2573; 13.7%), and those who underwent coronary artery angiography with revascularization (n = 15 388; 81.8%). Rates of in-hospital mortality among the groups were 20% vs 6.6% vs 2.1%, respectively (P < 0.001); ICH was 8.5% vs 1.1% vs 0.6%, respectively (P < 0.001); and gastrointestinal bleeding was 1.1% vs 0.4% vs 0.4%, respectively (P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis identified increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and ICH as the independent predictors of not performing coronary artery angiography and/or revascularization in patients with STEMI initially treated with fibrinolytic therapy. The majority of STEMI patients transferred after receiving fibrinolytic therapy undergo coronary angiography. However, notable numbers of patients do not receive revascularization, especially patients with cardiogenic shock and following a cardiac arrest.

Impact of a Rural Regional Myocardial Infarction System of Care in Wyoming

Background

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for patients presenting with ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction; however, to be effective, PCI must be performed in a timely manner. Rural regions are at a severe disadvantage, given the relatively sparse number of PCI hospitals and long transport times.

Methods and Results

We developed a standardized treatment and transfer protocol for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction in the rural state of Wyoming. The study design compared the time‐to‐treatment outcomes during the pre‐ and postintervention periods. Details of the program, changes in reperfusion strategies over time, and outcome improvements in treatment times were reported. From January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014, 889 patients were treated in 11 PCI‐capable hospitals (4 in Wyoming, 7 in adjoining states). Given the large geographic distance in the state (median of 47 miles between patient and PCI center), 52% of all patients were transfers, and 36% were administered fibrinolysis at the referral facility. Following the intervention, there was a significant shift toward greater use of primary PCI as the dominant reperfusion strategy (from 47% to 60%, P=0.002), and the median total ischemic time from symptom onset to arterial reperfusion was decreased by 92 minutes (P<0.001). There was a similar significant reduction in median time from receiving center door to balloon of 11 minutes less than the baseline time (P<0.01).

Conclusions

Rural systems of care for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction require increased levels of cooperation between emergency medical services agencies and hospitals. This study confirms that total ischemic times can be reduced through a coordinated rural statewide initiative.

Comparison of 30-day mortality and myocardial scar indices for patients treated with prehospital reduced dose fibrinolytic followed by percutaneous coronary intervention versus percutaneous coronary intervention alone for treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether prehospital, reduced dose fibrinolysis coupled with urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (FAST-PCI) reduces mortality and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) measures of infarct size, compared with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

BACKGROUND

Current standard therapy for STEMI is PPCI. However, FAST-PCI may shorten ischemic time (IT) and improve outcomes.

METHODS

Eligible STEMI patients received prehospital, reduced dose fibrinolysis along with standard therapy, and were transported for urgent percutaneous coronary intervention, or else they received usual treatment without prehospital fibrinolysis. Patients were divided retrospectively into four groups based on IT (<120, 120-179, 180-239 min, ≥240) for a mortality analysis cohort, and into three groups (<120, 120-179, ≥180 min) for a CMR analysis cohort. Within each IT group, patients were compared by FAST-PCI vs. PPCI strategy.

RESULTS

Between 1/2007 and 2/2014, 1,112 STEMI patients were treated. FAST-PCI was employed in 551 and PPCI in 561. Of these, 357 (32.1%) underwent CMR. The treatment groups were well matched. In STEMI patients with short IT (<120 and 120-179 min groups), those treated by FAST-PCI had lower 30-day mortality and myocardial scar sizes compared with PPCI treatment. For IT ≥180 min, the mortalities and myocardial scar sizes were equivalent for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In STEMI patients with IT <180 min, FAST-PCI may reduce 30-day mortality and myocardial scar size compared with PPCI. This suggests that infarct interventions must be instituted within 3 hr of symptom onset in order to detect an optimal beneficial effect both clinically and by CMR measurement. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Comparison of Physician to Computer Interpreted Electrocardiograms on ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction Door-to-balloon Times

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the project was to study the impact that immediate physician electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation would have on door-to-balloon times in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) as compared with computer-interpreted ECGs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 340 consecutive patients from September 2003 to December 2009 with STEMI who underwent emergent cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on the computer-interpreted ECG interpretation: those with acute myocardial infarction identified by the computer interpretation and those not identified as acute myocardial infarction. Patients (n = 173) from September 2003 to June 2006 had their initial ECG reviewed by the triage nurse, while patients from July 2006 to December 2009 (n = 167) had their ECG reviewed by the emergency department physician within 10 minutes. Times for catheterization laboratory activation and percutaneous coronary intervention were recorded in all patients.

RESULTS

Of the 340 patients with confirmed STEMI, 102 (30%) patients were not identified by computer interpretation. Comparing the prior protocol of computer ECG to physician interpretation, the latter resulted in significant improvements in median catheterization laboratory activation time {19 minutes [interquartile range (IQR): 10-37] vs. 16 minutes [IQR: 8-29]; P < 0.029} and in median door-to-balloon time [113 minutes (IQR: 86-143) vs. 85 minutes (IQR: 62-106); P < 0.001].

CONCLUSION

The computer-interpreted ECG failed to identify a significant number of patients with STEMI. The immediate review of ECGs by an emergency physician led to faster activation of the catheterization laboratory, and door-to-balloon times in patients with STEMI.

Comparison of outcomes for patients ≥75 years of age treated with pre-hospital reduced-dose fibrinolysis followed by percutaneous coronary intervention versus percutaneous coronary intervention alone for treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction

A coordinated system of care for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions that includes prehospital administration of reduced-dose fibrinolytic agents coupled with urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), termed FAST-PCI, has been shown to be at least as effective as primary PCI (PPCI) alone. However, this reduced-dose fibrinolytic strategy could be associated with increased bleeding risk, especially in elderly patients. The purpose of this study was to examine 30-day outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions treated with either strategy. Data from 120 patients aged ≥75 years treated with FAST-PCI were compared with those of 94 patients aged ≥75 years treated with PPCI. The primary comparator was mortality at 30 days. Stroke, reinfarction, and major bleeding were also compared. The groups were well matched for age, cardiac risk factors, and ischemic times. At 30 days, mortality was lower with FAST-PCI than with PPCI (4.2% vs 18.1%, p <0.01). Rates of stroke, reinfarction, and major bleeding (4% vs 2%) were similar in the 2 groups. The FAST-PCI cohort had lower rates of cardiogenic shock on hospital arrival (15% vs 26%, p = 0.05) and completely occluded infarct arteries (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] grade 0 flow, 35% vs 61%, p <0.01). In conclusion, for patients aged ≥75 years with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions, a FAST-PCI strategy in a coordinated system of care was associated with reduced 30-day mortality, earlier infarct artery patency, and lower incidence of cardiogenic shock at arrival compared with PPCI, without apparent bleeding, stroke, or reinfarction penalties.

Comparison of in-hospital outcomes with low-dose fibrinolytic therapy followed by urgent percutaneous coronary intervention versus percutaneous coronary intervention alone for treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction

In patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a strategy of prehospital reduced dose fibrinolytic administration coupled with urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), termed FAST-PCI strategy, has been found to be superior to primary PCI (PPCI) alone. A coordinated STEMI system of care that includes FAST-PCI should offer better outcomes than a system in which prehospital diagnosis of STEMI is followed by PPCI alone. The aim of this study was to compare the in-hospital outcomes for patients treated with the FAST-PCI approach with outcomes for patients treated with the PPCI approach in a common system. The in-hospital data for 253 STEMI patients (March 2003-December 2009) treated with a FAST-PCI protocol were compared with 124 patients (January 2010-August 2011) treated with PPCI strategy alone. In-hospital mortality was the primary comparator. Stroke, major bleeding, and reinfarction during index hospitalization were also compared. The in-hospital mortality was significantly lower with FAST-PCI than with PPCI (2.77% vs 10.48%, p = 0.0017). Rates of stroke, reinfarction, and major bleeding were similar in the 2 groups. There was a lower frequency of pre-PCI Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 0 flow (no patency) seen in patients treated with FAST-PCI compared with the PPCI patients (26.7% vs 62.7%, p <0.0001). Earlier infarct artery patency in the FAST-PCI group had a favorable impact on the incidence of cardiogenic shock on hospital arrival (3.1% vs 20.9%, p <0.0001). In conclusion, compared with a PPCI strategy in a common STEMI system of care, the FAST-PCI strategy was associated with earlier infarct artery patency and lower incidence of cardiogenic shock, as well as with reduced in-hospital mortality.

Benefit of transferring ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients for percutaneous coronary intervention compared with administration of onsite fibrinolytic declines as delays increase

BACKGROUND

Although randomized trials suggest that transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (X-PCI) in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction is superior to onsite fibrinolytic therapy (O-FT), the generalizability of these findings to routine clinical practice is unclear because door-to-balloon (XDB) times are rapid in randomized trials but are frequently prolonged in practice. We hypothesized that delays resulting from transfer would reduce the survival advantage of X-PCI compared with O-FT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients enrolled in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI) within 12 hours of pain onset were identified. Propensity matching of patients treated with X-PCI and O-FT was performed, and the effect of PCI-related delay on in-hospital mortality was assessed. PCI-related delay was calculated by subtracting the XDB from the door-to-needle time in each matched pair. Conditional logistic regression adjusted for patient and hospital variables identified the XDB door-to-needle time at which no mortality advantage for X-PCI over O-FT was present. Eighty-one percent of X-PCI patients were matched (n=9506) to O-FT patients (n=9506). In the matched cohort, X-PCI was performed with delays >90 minutes in 68%. Multivariable analysis found no mortality advantage for X-PCI over O-FT when XDB door-to-needle time exceeded ≈120 minutes.

CONCLUSION

PCI-related delays are extensive among patients transferred for X-PCI and are associated with poorer outcomes. No differential excess in mortality was seen with X-PCI compared with O-FT even with long PCI-related delays, but as XDB door-to-needle time times increase, the mortality advantage for X-PCI over O-FT declines.

Effectiveness and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

The goal of treatment of an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is the timely restoration of myocardial blood flow to decrease myocardial necrosis and thereby preserve cardiac tissue and overall function. Mainstays of reperfusion treatment include fibrinolytic therapy and/or primary percutaneous coronary intervention. In those patients who are treated with fibrinolysis, there is debate as to whether and when they should also undergo subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention. In conclusion, the investigators review the published reports on systematic percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolytic therapy in the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and discuss the rationale behind this treatment strategy.

Management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Comparison of the updated guidelines from North America and Europe

The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology each recently published updated guidelines for management of patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. In this article, we highlight the most important new recommendations, review their supporting data, and describe differences between the guidelines. Key aspects of these updates include detailed guidance regarding the selection of a reperfusion strategy and the incorporation of newer adjunctive antithrombotic agents. Both new guidelines suggest caution in the administration of intravenous beta-blockers, avoidance of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and support a more aggressive approach to secondary risk factor management. The 2 guidelines have some nuanced differences as well as some recommendations that are unique to each guideline. They present different levels of support for the 4 available adjunctive parenteral anticoagulants, vary in their endorsement of routine elective coronary angiography after fibrinolysis, and cite different targets for low density lipoprotein long-term. Major unique recommendations include the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Assocaition's emphasis of a stepped approach to analgesia in patients with musculoskeletal pain beginning with acetaminophen or aspirin and a lower target international normalized ratio in patients receiving warfarin, aspirin, and clopidogrel. Meanwhile, unique recommendations in the European Society of Cardiology guidelines include measures to prevent/treat microvascular obstruction and reperfusion injury associated with percutaneous coronary intervention and greater emphasis on maintaining eugylcemia. As these guidelines represent an evidence based approach, health care providers should become familiar with the new data and the resultant updated recommendations to ensure optimal treatment of their patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Prehospital fibrinolytic therapy followed by urgent percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) the shorter the reperfusion time, the better the outcome is, regardless of the reperfusion method. Effective, early and rapid reperfusion is the most important goal in the treatment of patients with STEMI. In majority cases of STEMI, transport or transfer to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-capable center will occur, sometimes bypassing the closest hospital facilities that are not PCI centers. The timely optimal reperfusion strategy might be a prehospital initiated pharmacological reperfusion with subsequent PCI. Reduced-dose prehospital fibrinolysis allows safe transport of STEMI patients to PCI centers for urgent culprit artery PCI, and may be a superior approach compared with transporting patients to the closest non-PCI hospital for fibrinolytic therapy. In this review we will discuss the evidence regarding reperfusion strategies in STEMI patients.

Reperfusion options in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with expected delays

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the optimal reperfusion strategy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients when performed in a timely manner by experienced providers. Unfortunately, only 25% of US hospitals have percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability. Transfer for PPCI has also been shown to improve outcomes if transfer times are short and PCI can be performed within 90 minutes. However, many STEMI patients cannot be transferred in a timely fashion because of long distances, adverse weather, or process-of-care delays. Recent data support strategies that combine fibrinolysis with transfer for PCI under these circumstances. The critical issue that is still debated is the timing of PCI (immediate vs delayed vs rescue). The significance of time to reperfusion to mortality is important but less critical for PCI than for fibrinolysis, but time still matters. To optimize time to reperfusion for STEMI patients, all hospitals need to have predetermined protocols in place based on hospital characteristics and proximity to a catheterization laboratory.