Egle Kalinauskiene1, Dalia Gerviene1, Ljuba Bacharova2,3, Zora Krivosikova4, Albinas Naudziunas1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania. 2. International Laser Center, Bratislava, Slovakia. 3. Institute of Pathophysiology, Medical School, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia. 4. Slovak Medical University, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to current guidelines, the main indications for PCI in patients with STEMI are ST-segment deviations and defined time from the onset of symptoms. Negative T wave at admission can be a sign of prolonged ischemia or spontaneous reperfusion. In both situations, the urgent intervention is questionable. We evaluated the infarct size and in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients with negative T wave in cases of primary PCI strategy compared with conservative treatment. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 116 STEMI patients with negative T wave at the presenting ECG was performed. Sixty-eight patients (59%) underwent primary PCI strategy (PCI group), and 48 (41%) were treated conservatively (non-PCI group). The infarct size estimated by using the Selvester score, and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: The difference between Selvester score values at admission and at discharge in the non-PCI group was statistically significant (1.48; 95% CI 0.694-2.27), while no significant difference was observed in the PCI group (-0.07; 95% CI -0.546-0.686). The in-hospital mortality was higher in the non-PCI group; however, the numbers were relatively small: PCI 2 (2.9%) and non-PCI 5 (10.4%). CONCLUSION: In this study, we showed a reduction in the infarct size estimated by Selvester score in STEMI patients with negative T wave who were treated conservatively, while there was no significant change in the infarct size after primary PCI strategy. The higher mortality in patients treated conservatively could be attributed to higher age and comorbidities in the non-PCI group. It seems that conservative treatment strategy might be an option in STEMI patients with negative T wave.
BACKGROUND: According to current guidelines, the main indications for PCI in patients with STEMI are ST-segment deviations and defined time from the onset of symptoms. Negative T wave at admission can be a sign of prolonged ischemia or spontaneous reperfusion. In both situations, the urgent intervention is questionable. We evaluated the infarct size and in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients with negative T wave in cases of primary PCI strategy compared with conservative treatment. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 116 STEMI patients with negative T wave at the presenting ECG was performed. Sixty-eight patients (59%) underwent primary PCI strategy (PCI group), and 48 (41%) were treated conservatively (non-PCI group). The infarct size estimated by using the Selvester score, and in-hospital mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: The difference between Selvester score values at admission and at discharge in the non-PCI group was statistically significant (1.48; 95% CI 0.694-2.27), while no significant difference was observed in the PCI group (-0.07; 95% CI -0.546-0.686). The in-hospital mortality was higher in the non-PCI group; however, the numbers were relatively small: PCI 2 (2.9%) and non-PCI 5 (10.4%). CONCLUSION: In this study, we showed a reduction in the infarct size estimated by Selvester score in STEMI patients with negative T wave who were treated conservatively, while there was no significant change in the infarct size after primary PCI strategy. The higher mortality in patients treated conservatively could be attributed to higher age and comorbidities in the non-PCI group. It seems that conservative treatment strategy might be an option in STEMI patients with negative T wave.
Authors: Michael C Tjandrawidjaja; Yuling Fu; Cynthia M Westerhout; Galen S Wagner; Christopher B Granger; Paul W Armstrong Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Stephanie A M Knippenberg; Galen S Wagner; Joey F A Ubachs; Anton Gorgels; Erik Hedström; Håkan Arheden; Henrik Engblom Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: R Scott Wright; Kevin Bybee; Wayne L Miller; Dennis A Laudon; Joseph G Murphy; Allan S Jaffe Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2005-06-22 Impact factor: 4.164
Authors: Lia E Bang; Rasmus S Ripa; Peer Grande; Jens Kastrup; Peter M Clemmensen; Galen S Wagner Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2008-09-14 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Borja Ibanez; Stefan James; Stefan Agewall; Manuel J Antunes; Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci; Héctor Bueno; Alida L P Caforio; Filippo Crea; John A Goudevenos; Sigrun Halvorsen; Gerhard Hindricks; Adnan Kastrati; Mattie J Lenzen; Eva Prescott; Marco Roffi; Marco Valgimigli; Christoph Varenhorst; Pascal Vranckx; Petr Widimský Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-01-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Osman Can Yontar; Guney Erdogan; Mustafa Yenercag; Sefa Gul; Ugur Arslan; Ali Karagoz Journal: Acta Cardiol Sin Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 2.672