Cargando…

Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been described as either STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) or non-STEMI myocardial infarction. This classification is historically related to the use of thrombolytic therapy, which is effective in STEMI. The current era of wid...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Knot, Jiri, Rohac, Fili P, Petr, Robert, Bil Kova, Dana, Widimsky, Petr, Bělohlavek, Jan, Kala, Petr, Rokyta, Richard, Stasek, Josef, Kuzmanov, Boyko, Djambazov, Slavejko, Grigorov, Mladen, Nomaz, Ota Hli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Clinics Cardive Publishing 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23108517
http://dx.doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2012-053
_version_ 1782278113743339520
author Knot, Jiri
Rohac, Fili P
Petr, Robert
Bil Kova, Dana
Widimsky, Petr
Bělohlavek, Jan
Kala, Petr
Rokyta, Richard
Stasek, Josef
Kuzmanov, Boyko
Djambazov, Slavejko
Grigorov, Mladen
Nomaz, Ota Hli
author_facet Knot, Jiri
Rohac, Fili P
Petr, Robert
Bil Kova, Dana
Widimsky, Petr
Bělohlavek, Jan
Kala, Petr
Rokyta, Richard
Stasek, Josef
Kuzmanov, Boyko
Djambazov, Slavejko
Grigorov, Mladen
Nomaz, Ota Hli
author_sort Knot, Jiri
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Traditionally, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been described as either STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) or non-STEMI myocardial infarction. This classification is historically related to the use of thrombolytic therapy, which is effective in STEMI. The current era of widespread use of coronary angiography (CAG), usually followed by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) puts this classification system into question. OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of patients with STEMI and ST-depression myocardial infarction (STDMI) who were treated with emergency PCI. METHODS: This multicentre registry enrolled a total of 6 602 consecutive patients with AMI. Patients were divided into the following subgroups: STEMI (n = 3446), STDMI (n = 907), left bundle branch block (LBBB) AMI (n = 241), right bundle branch block (RBBB) AMI (n = 338) and other electrocardiographic (ECG) AMI (n = 1670). Baseline and angiographic characteristics were studied, and revascularisation therapies and in-hospital mortality were analysed. RESULTS: Acute heart failure was present in 29.5% of the STDMI vs 27.4% of the STEMI patients (p < 0.001). STDMI patients had more extensive coronary atherosclerosis than patients with STEMI (three-vessel disease: 53.1 vs 30%, p < 0.001). The left main coronary artery was an infract-related artery (IRA) in 6.0% of STDMI vs 1.1% of STEMI patients (p < 0.001). TIMI flow 0–1 was found in 35.0% of STDMI vs 66.0% of STEMI patients (p < 0.001). Primary PCI was performed in 88.1% of STEMI (with a success rate of 90.8%) vs 61.8% of STDMI patients (with a success rate of 94.5%) (p = 0.012 for PCI success rates). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different (STDMI 6.3 vs STEMI 5.4%, p = 0.330). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that similar strategies (emergency CAG with PCI whenever feasible) should be applied to both these types of AMI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3721943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Clinics Cardive Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37219432013-08-07 Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry Knot, Jiri Rohac, Fili P Petr, Robert Bil Kova, Dana Widimsky, Petr Bělohlavek, Jan Kala, Petr Rokyta, Richard Stasek, Josef Kuzmanov, Boyko Djambazov, Slavejko Grigorov, Mladen Nomaz, Ota Hli Cardiovasc J Afr Cardiovascular Topics BACKGROUND: Traditionally, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has been described as either STEMI (ST-elevation myocardial infarction) or non-STEMI myocardial infarction. This classification is historically related to the use of thrombolytic therapy, which is effective in STEMI. The current era of widespread use of coronary angiography (CAG), usually followed by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) puts this classification system into question. OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of patients with STEMI and ST-depression myocardial infarction (STDMI) who were treated with emergency PCI. METHODS: This multicentre registry enrolled a total of 6 602 consecutive patients with AMI. Patients were divided into the following subgroups: STEMI (n = 3446), STDMI (n = 907), left bundle branch block (LBBB) AMI (n = 241), right bundle branch block (RBBB) AMI (n = 338) and other electrocardiographic (ECG) AMI (n = 1670). Baseline and angiographic characteristics were studied, and revascularisation therapies and in-hospital mortality were analysed. RESULTS: Acute heart failure was present in 29.5% of the STDMI vs 27.4% of the STEMI patients (p < 0.001). STDMI patients had more extensive coronary atherosclerosis than patients with STEMI (three-vessel disease: 53.1 vs 30%, p < 0.001). The left main coronary artery was an infract-related artery (IRA) in 6.0% of STDMI vs 1.1% of STEMI patients (p < 0.001). TIMI flow 0–1 was found in 35.0% of STDMI vs 66.0% of STEMI patients (p < 0.001). Primary PCI was performed in 88.1% of STEMI (with a success rate of 90.8%) vs 61.8% of STDMI patients (with a success rate of 94.5%) (p = 0.012 for PCI success rates). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different (STDMI 6.3 vs STEMI 5.4%, p = 0.330). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that similar strategies (emergency CAG with PCI whenever feasible) should be applied to both these types of AMI. Clinics Cardive Publishing 2012-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3721943/ /pubmed/23108517 http://dx.doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2012-053 Text en Copyright © 2010 Clinics Cardive Publishing http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Topics
Knot, Jiri
Rohac, Fili P
Petr, Robert
Bil Kova, Dana
Widimsky, Petr
Bělohlavek, Jan
Kala, Petr
Rokyta, Richard
Stasek, Josef
Kuzmanov, Boyko
Djambazov, Slavejko
Grigorov, Mladen
Nomaz, Ota Hli
Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry
title Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry
title_full Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry
title_fullStr Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry
title_short Comparison of outcomes in ST-segment depression and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency PCI: data from a multicentre registry
title_sort comparison of outcomes in st-segment depression and st-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with emergency pci: data from a multicentre registry
topic Cardiovascular Topics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23108517
http://dx.doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2012-053
work_keys_str_mv AT knotjiri comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT rohacfilip comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT petrrobert comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT bilkovadana comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT widimskypetr comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT belohlavekjan comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT kalapetr comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT rokytarichard comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT stasekjosef comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT kuzmanovboyko comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT djambazovslavejko comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT grigorovmladen comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry
AT nomazotahli comparisonofoutcomesinstsegmentdepressionandstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctionpatientstreatedwithemergencypcidatafromamulticentreregistry