Fibrinolysis Therapy Combined with Deferred PCI versus Primary Angioplasty for STEMI Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Preliminary Results from a Single Center

Effect of different reperfusion strategies on recovery of ventricular function after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A longitudinal single-center study

Background and Aims

Although the clinical benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on cardiovascular outcomes has been widely investigated, the impact of this revascularization strategy compared to other alternatives on the degree of left ventricular function recovery is poorly demonstrated. In this regard, we investigated whether time delays between the presentation of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and PCI in reperfusion strategies have different impacts on left ventricular function recovery.

Methods

In this single-center study, all the patients who presented with STEMI and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) were enrolled. Included patients were subjected to four different treatment groups of primary, rescue (immediate transfer for angioplasty due to failed fibrinolytic therapy), facilitated (fibrinolytic therapy followed by angioplasty within 24 h), and deferred (successful fibrinolytic therapy and PCI after 24 h) PCI based on hospital facilities. Echocardiography was performed for all the patients at the time of hospitalization and 6 months later.

Results

A total of 128 patients were included in this study. The LVEF improved by 15.3 ± 6.3%, 11.5 ± 3.61%, 4.0 ± 1.0%, and -1.3 ± 7.0% in primary, rescue, facilitated, and deferred PCI groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing deferred PCI experienced a significantly lower improvement in LVEF compared with primary and rescue PCI (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Primary PCI demonstrated the most promising recovery in left ventricular function following STEMI compared to other alternative strategies. Performing PCI as soon as possible provides better recovery of LVEF.

Statistical findings and outcomes of acute coronary syndrome patients during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross sectional study

Introduction

Time to treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) can be a matter of life or death considering its major contribution to cardiovascular mortality. The sudden outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease in 2019 (COVID-19) caused great uncertainty in achieving ACS time-frame goals. This study assesses ACS presentation time and outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A total of 1287 ACS patients were included in this cross-sectional study. We compared mortality and other outcomes during hospital admission. Before-COVID was deemed as admission between March 2018 and February 2020, while admission between March 2020 and February 2022 was deemed as during-COVID. The association of admission on outcomes was measured using regression statistics.

Results

There was a 51.2 % decline of total patients before-COVID (865 patients) to during-COVID (422 patients). While there is no difference in first medical contact (FMC) before [3 h (IQR 1-7)] compared to during the pandemic [3 h (IQR 2-9), p 0.058], we found a decrease in door to wire time < 12 h (43.41 % vs 18.98 %, p < 0.001). There was also a non-significant decrease in fibrinolysis (20.45 % vs 15.18 %, p 0.054) but an increase in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (58.36 % vs 77.04 %, p value < 0,001). We also found reduced mortality (12.52 % vs 9.69 %, p 0.151), heart failure (28.16 % vs 25.81 %, p 0.31), but more cardiogenic shock during the pandemic (9.19 % vs 13.33 %, p 0.028).

Conclusions

While the mortality seems statistically unaffected, we found less admission and prolonged door to wire time during-COVID pandemic.

ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) Management in the Era of COVID-19: A Systematic and Critical Review of Published Guidance Reports

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had a major impact on healthcare systems worldwide. During the early phase of the pandemic many elective procedures were postponed. At the same time, the safe and effective management of medical emergencies such as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been a challenge.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted aiming to identify published guidance reports by national or international societies regarding the management of patients suffering STEMI in the era of COVID-19.

Results

Among 1681 articles initially retrieved, six fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Two reports were international consensus documents, while four reports were national guidance statements from Asian countries (Taiwan, India, Iran, and China). Most documents were drafted during the early phase of the pandemic. According to the international consensus documents, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be regarded as the reperfusion method of choice. On the other hand, in three out of four national consensus statements (Taiwan, Iran and China) fibrinolysis was considered as the reperfusion method of choice for STEMI in suspected/confirmed patients with COVID-19, unless contraindicated or in the presence of high cardiovascular risk clinical features. Authors of all documents underlined the need for early COVID-19 testing in patients with STEMI to better determine the next therapeutical steps.

Conclusions

National and international consensus statements for STEMI management in the era of COVID-19 have been published mainly during the early peak phase of the pandemic. Authors recognise that these recommendations are mainly based on expert opinions and observational data. As global immunization rates increase and methods for rapid COVID-19 detection are widely available, the implementation of traditional evidence-based practices used before the pandemic is becoming more feasible.

Current situation of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in a county hospital chest pain center during an epidemic of novel coronavirus pneumonia

Our object was to examine how the pre- and post-pandemic COVID-19 impacted the care of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients in county hospitals. Using January 20, 2020, as the time point for the control of a unique coronavirus pneumonia epidemic in Jieshou, 272 acute STEMI patients were separated into pre-epidemic (group A, n = 130) and epidemic (group B, n = 142). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of mode of arrival, symptom onset-to-first medical contact time, door-to-needle time, door-to-balloon time, maximum hypersensitive cardiac troponin I levels, and in-hospital adverse events (P > 0.05). Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was much less common in group B (57.7%) compared to group A (72.3%) (P = 0.012), and the proportion of reperfusion treatment with thrombolysis was 30.3% in group B compared to 13.1% in group A (P < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that age ≥76 years, admission NT-proBNP levels ≥3,018 pg/ml, and combined cardiogenic shock were independent risk factors for death. Compared with thrombolytic therapy, emergency PCI treatment further reduced the risk of death in STEMI. In conclusion, the county hospitals treated more acute STEMI with thrombolysis during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention or pharmacoinvasive strategy in a Latin American country

OBJECTIVE

The primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The pharmacoinvasive strategy (PIs) is a reasonable alternative when prompt PPCI is not possible, especially in resource-limited regions. We aimed to compare PPCI versus PIs outcomes in Peru.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study based on the second Peruvian Registry of STEMI (PERSTEMI II). We compared the characteristics, in-hospital outcomes and 30-day mortality of patients undergoing PPCI during the first 12 h and those receiving a PIs. A propensity score-matched analysis was conducted to compare the effects of each treatment strategy on clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

PIs patients were younger than PPCI patients, had a shorter first medical contact time, first medical contact to reperfusion time, and total ischemic time until reperfusion. Successful PCI was more frequent in the PIs group (84.4% vs. 71.1%, p = 0.035). There were no differences between PIs and PPCI in terms of total in-hospital mortality (5.2% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.703), cardiovascular mortality (4.2% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.735), cardiogenic shock (8.3% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.326), heart failure (19.8% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.112), or major bleeding (0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.194). In the propensity score-matched analysis, the rates of cardiovascular mortality, postinfarction heart failure and successful reperfusion were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study, no differences were found in the in-hospital outcomes between patients with STEMI who received PIs or PPCI.