Kevin R Bainey1,2,3, Paul W Armstrong1,2, Yinggan Zheng1, Neil Brass2,4, Benjamin D Tyrrell2,4, Raymond Leung2,4, Cynthia M Westerhout1, Robert C Welsh1,2,3. 1. Canadian VIGOUR Centre (K.R.B., P.W.A., Y.Z., C.M.W., R.C.W.), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 2. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine (K.R.B., P.W.A., N.B., B.D.T., R.L., R.C.W.), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 3. Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Canada (K.R.B., R.C.W.). 4. CK Hui Heart Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (N.B., B.D.T., R.L.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trial data support a pharmacoinvasive strategy as an alternative to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We evaluated whether this is true in a real-world prehospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction network using ECG assessment of reperfusion coupled with clinical outcomes within 1 year. METHODS: Of the 5583 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients in the Alberta Vital Heart Response Program (Cohort 1 [2006-2011]: n=3593; Cohort 2 [2013-2016]: n=1990), we studied 3287 patients who received a pharmacoinvasive strategy with tenecteplase (April 2013: half-dose tenecteplase was employed in prehospital patients ≥75 years) or pPCI. ECGs were analyzed within a core laboratory; sum ST-segment deviation resolution ≥50% was defined as successful reperfusion. The primary composite was all-cause death, congestive heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and recurrent myocardial infarction within 1 year. RESULTS: The pharmacoinvasive approach was administered in 1805 patients (54.9%), (493 [27.3%] underwent rescue/urgent percutaneous coronary intervention and 1312 [72.7%] had scheduled angiography); pPCI was performed in 1482 patients (45.1%). There was greater ST-segment resolution post-catheterization/percutaneous coronary intervention with a pharmacoinvasive strategy versus pPCI (75.8% versus 64.3%, IP-weighted odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.33-1.90; P<0.001). The primary composite was significantly lower with a pharmacoinvasive approach (16.3% versus 23.1%, IP-weighted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P=0.033). Major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage were similar between a pharmacoinvasive strategy and pPCI (7.6% versus 7.5%, P=0.867; 0.6% versus 0.6%; P=0.841, respectively). In the 82 patients ≥75 years with a prehospital pharmacoinvasive strategy, similar ST-segment resolution and rescue rates were observed with full-dose versus half-dose tenecteplase (75.8% versus 88.9%, P=0.259; 31.0% versus 29.2%, P=0.867) with no difference in the primary composite (31.0% versus 25.0%, P=0.585). CONCLUSIONS: In this large Canadian ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction registry, a pharmacoinvasive strategy was associated with improved ST-segment resolution and enhanced outcomes within 1 year compared with pPCI. Our findings support the application of a selective pharmacoinvasive reperfusion strategy when delay to pPCI exists.
BACKGROUND: Recent clinical trial data support a pharmacoinvasive strategy as an alternative to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We evaluated whether this is true in a real-world prehospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction network using ECG assessment of reperfusion coupled with clinical outcomes within 1 year. METHODS: Of the 5583 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctionpatients in the Alberta Vital Heart Response Program (Cohort 1 [2006-2011]: n=3593; Cohort 2 [2013-2016]: n=1990), we studied 3287 patients who received a pharmacoinvasive strategy with tenecteplase (April 2013: half-dose tenecteplase was employed in prehospital patients ≥75 years) or pPCI. ECGs were analyzed within a core laboratory; sum ST-segment deviation resolution ≥50% was defined as successful reperfusion. The primary composite was all-cause death, congestive heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and recurrent myocardial infarction within 1 year. RESULTS: The pharmacoinvasive approach was administered in 1805 patients (54.9%), (493 [27.3%] underwent rescue/urgent percutaneous coronary intervention and 1312 [72.7%] had scheduled angiography); pPCI was performed in 1482 patients (45.1%). There was greater ST-segment resolution post-catheterization/percutaneous coronary intervention with a pharmacoinvasive strategy versus pPCI (75.8% versus 64.3%, IP-weighted odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.33-1.90; P<0.001). The primary composite was significantly lower with a pharmacoinvasive approach (16.3% versus 23.1%, IP-weighted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; P=0.033). Major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage were similar between a pharmacoinvasive strategy and pPCI (7.6% versus 7.5%, P=0.867; 0.6% versus 0.6%; P=0.841, respectively). In the 82 patients ≥75 years with a prehospital pharmacoinvasive strategy, similar ST-segment resolution and rescue rates were observed with full-dose versus half-dose tenecteplase (75.8% versus 88.9%, P=0.259; 31.0% versus 29.2%, P=0.867) with no difference in the primary composite (31.0% versus 25.0%, P=0.585). CONCLUSIONS: In this large Canadian ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction registry, a pharmacoinvasive strategy was associated with improved ST-segment resolution and enhanced outcomes within 1 year compared with pPCI. Our findings support the application of a selective pharmacoinvasive reperfusion strategy when delay to pPCI exists.
Authors: Manuel Chacón-Diaz; Piero Custodio-Sánchez; Paol Rojas De la Cuba; Germán Yábar-Galindo; René Rodríguez-Olivares; David Miranda-Noé; Luis Marcos López-Rojas; Akram Hernández-Vásquez Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2022-06-29 Impact factor: 2.174
Authors: Madhu K Natarajan; Harindra C Wijeysundera; Garth Oakes; Warren J Cantor; Steven E S Miner; Michelle Welsford; Sheldon Cheskes; Michel R Le May; Jana Jeffrey; Dennis T Ko Journal: CJC Open Date: 2020-07-23
Authors: Diego Araiza-Garaygordobil; Rodrigo Gopar-Nieto; Alejandro Cabello-López; Pablo Martinez-Amezcua; Guering Eid-Lidt; Luis A Baeza-Herrera; Héctor Gonzalez-Pacheco; Jose Luis Briseño-De la Cruz; Daniel Sierra-Lara Martinez; Salvador Mendoza-García; Alfredo Altamirano-Castillo; Alexandra Arias-Mendoza Journal: CJC Open Date: 2020-11-25
Authors: Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Dhiran Verghese; Malcolm R Bell; Dennis H Murphree; Wisit Cheungpasitporn; Paul Elliott Miller; Shannon M Dunlay; Abhiram Prasad; Gurpreet S Sandhu; Rajiv Gulati; Mandeep Singh; Amir Lerman; Bernard J Gersh; David R Holmes; Gregory W Barsness Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Himawan Fernando; Diem Dinh; Stephen J Duffy; Angela Brennan; Anand Sharma; David Clark; Andrew Ajani; Melanie Freeman; Karlheinz Peter; Dion Stub; Chin Hiew; Christopher M Reid; Ernesto Oqueli Journal: Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc Date: 2021-03-15
Authors: Andrew Guy; Nicki Gabers; Chase Crisfield; Jennie Helmer; Shaylee C Peterson; Anders Ganstal; Caryl Harper; Ross Gibson; Sumandeep Dhesi Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2021-12