Cargando…

A prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated PCI versus primary PCI in Indian patients with STEMI (STEPP—AMI)

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of pharmacoinvasive strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Primary PCI is the preferred treatment for STEMI, but it is not a feasible option for many. A pharmacoinvasive...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Victor, Suma M, Subban, Vijayakumar, Alexander, Thomas, G, Bahuleyan C, Srinivas, Arun, S, Selvamani, Mullasari, Ajit S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25332825
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000133
_version_ 1782338352641474560
author Victor, Suma M
Subban, Vijayakumar
Alexander, Thomas
G, Bahuleyan C
Srinivas, Arun
S, Selvamani
Mullasari, Ajit S
author_facet Victor, Suma M
Subban, Vijayakumar
Alexander, Thomas
G, Bahuleyan C
Srinivas, Arun
S, Selvamani
Mullasari, Ajit S
author_sort Victor, Suma M
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of pharmacoinvasive strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Primary PCI is the preferred treatment for STEMI, but it is not a feasible option for many. A pharmacoinvasive strategy might be a practical solution in the Indian context, although few empirical data exist to guide this approach. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, multicentre pilot study. Two hundred consecutive patients with STEMI aged 18–75 years, presenting within 12 h of onset of symptoms and requiring a reperfusion strategy, were studied from five primary PCI capable centres in South India. Patients who opted for pharmacoinvasive strategy (n=45) formed group A. Group B consisted of patients treated with primary PCI (n=155). One patient was lost to follow-up at 1 year. The primary end point was a composite of death, cardiogenic shock, reinfarction, repeat revascularisation of a culprit artery and congestive heart failure at 30 days. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 11.1% in group A and in 3.9% in group B, p=0.07 (RR=2.87; 95% CI 0.92 to 8.97). The infarct-related artery patency at angiogram was 82.2% in group A and 22.6% in group B (p<0.001). PCI was performed in 73.3% in group A versus 100% in group B (p<0.001), and a thrombus was present in 26.7% in group A versus 63.2% in group B (p<0.001). Failed fibrinolysis occurred in 12.1% in group A. There was no difference in bleeding risk, 2.2% in group A versus 0.6% in group B, (p=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows that a pharmacoinvasive strategy can be implemented in patients not selected for primary PCI in India and hints at the possibility of similar outcomes. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial is registered with Clinical trial registry of India, CTRI number: REF/2011/07/002556.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4189336
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41893362014-10-20 A prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated PCI versus primary PCI in Indian patients with STEMI (STEPP—AMI) Victor, Suma M Subban, Vijayakumar Alexander, Thomas G, Bahuleyan C Srinivas, Arun S, Selvamani Mullasari, Ajit S Open Heart Coronary Artery Disease OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of pharmacoinvasive strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Primary PCI is the preferred treatment for STEMI, but it is not a feasible option for many. A pharmacoinvasive strategy might be a practical solution in the Indian context, although few empirical data exist to guide this approach. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, multicentre pilot study. Two hundred consecutive patients with STEMI aged 18–75 years, presenting within 12 h of onset of symptoms and requiring a reperfusion strategy, were studied from five primary PCI capable centres in South India. Patients who opted for pharmacoinvasive strategy (n=45) formed group A. Group B consisted of patients treated with primary PCI (n=155). One patient was lost to follow-up at 1 year. The primary end point was a composite of death, cardiogenic shock, reinfarction, repeat revascularisation of a culprit artery and congestive heart failure at 30 days. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 11.1% in group A and in 3.9% in group B, p=0.07 (RR=2.87; 95% CI 0.92 to 8.97). The infarct-related artery patency at angiogram was 82.2% in group A and 22.6% in group B (p<0.001). PCI was performed in 73.3% in group A versus 100% in group B (p<0.001), and a thrombus was present in 26.7% in group A versus 63.2% in group B (p<0.001). Failed fibrinolysis occurred in 12.1% in group A. There was no difference in bleeding risk, 2.2% in group A versus 0.6% in group B, (p=0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows that a pharmacoinvasive strategy can be implemented in patients not selected for primary PCI in India and hints at the possibility of similar outcomes. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial is registered with Clinical trial registry of India, CTRI number: REF/2011/07/002556. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4189336/ /pubmed/25332825 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000133 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Coronary Artery Disease
Victor, Suma M
Subban, Vijayakumar
Alexander, Thomas
G, Bahuleyan C
Srinivas, Arun
S, Selvamani
Mullasari, Ajit S
A prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated PCI versus primary PCI in Indian patients with STEMI (STEPP—AMI)
title A prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated PCI versus primary PCI in Indian patients with STEMI (STEPP—AMI)
title_full A prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated PCI versus primary PCI in Indian patients with STEMI (STEPP—AMI)
title_fullStr A prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated PCI versus primary PCI in Indian patients with STEMI (STEPP—AMI)
title_full_unstemmed A prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated PCI versus primary PCI in Indian patients with STEMI (STEPP—AMI)
title_short A prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated PCI versus primary PCI in Indian patients with STEMI (STEPP—AMI)
title_sort prospective, observational, multicentre study comparing tenecteplase facilitated pci versus primary pci in indian patients with stemi (stepp—ami)
topic Coronary Artery Disease
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189336/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25332825
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000133
work_keys_str_mv AT victorsumam aprospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT subbanvijayakumar aprospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT alexanderthomas aprospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT gbahuleyanc aprospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT srinivasarun aprospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT sselvamani aprospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT mullasariajits aprospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT victorsumam prospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT subbanvijayakumar prospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT alexanderthomas prospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT gbahuleyanc prospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT srinivasarun prospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT sselvamani prospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami
AT mullasariajits prospectiveobservationalmulticentrestudycomparingtenecteplasefacilitatedpciversusprimarypciinindianpatientswithstemisteppami