OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the incidence of ocular hemorrhage in patients with and without diabetes after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND:Ocular hemorrhage after thrombolysis has been reported rarely. However, there is concern that the risk is increased in patients with diabetes. In fact, diabetic hemorrhagic retinopathy has been identified as a contraindication to thrombolytic therapy without clear evidence that these patients have an increased risk for ocular hemorrhage. METHODS: We identified all suspected ocular hemorrhages from bleeding complications reported in patients enrolled in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)-I trial. Additional information was collected on a one-page data form. We compared the incidence and location of ocular hemorrhages in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: There were 40,899 patients (99.7%) with information about diabetic history and ocular bleeding. Twelve patients (0.03%) had an ocular hemorrhage. Intraocular hemorrhage was confirmed in only one patient. There were 6,011 patients (15%) with diabetes, of whom only 1 had an ocular hemorrhage (eyelid hematoma after a documented fall). The upper 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of intraocular hemorrhage in patients with and without diabetes were 0.05% and 0.006%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Ocular hemorrhage and, more important, intraocular hemorrhage after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction is extremely uncommon. The calculated upper 95% confidence interval for the incidence of intraocular hemorrhage in patients with diabetes was only 0.05%. We conclude that diabetic retinopathy should not be considered a contraindication to thrombolysis in patients with an acute myocardial infarction.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the incidence of ocular hemorrhage in patients with and without diabetes after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. BACKGROUND:Ocular hemorrhage after thrombolysis has been reported rarely. However, there is concern that the risk is increased in patients with diabetes. In fact, diabetic hemorrhagic retinopathy has been identified as a contraindication to thrombolytic therapy without clear evidence that these patients have an increased risk for ocular hemorrhage. METHODS: We identified all suspected ocular hemorrhages from bleeding complications reported in patients enrolled in the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)-I trial. Additional information was collected on a one-page data form. We compared the incidence and location of ocular hemorrhages in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: There were 40,899 patients (99.7%) with information about diabetic history and ocular bleeding. Twelve patients (0.03%) had an ocular hemorrhage. Intraocular hemorrhage was confirmed in only one patient. There were 6,011 patients (15%) with diabetes, of whom only 1 had an ocular hemorrhage (eyelid hematoma after a documented fall). The upper 95% confidence intervals for the incidence of intraocular hemorrhage in patients with and without diabetes were 0.05% and 0.006%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Ocular hemorrhage and, more important, intraocular hemorrhage after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction is extremely uncommon. The calculated upper 95% confidence interval for the incidence of intraocular hemorrhage in patients with diabetes was only 0.05%. We conclude that diabetic retinopathy should not be considered a contraindication to thrombolysis in patients with an acute myocardial infarction.