Cargando…

Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock

AIMS: There are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI‐CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI‐CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra, Verghese, Dhiran, Bell, Malcolm R., Murphree, Dennis H., Cheungpasitporn, Wisit, Miller, Paul Elliott, Dunlay, Shannon M., Prasad, Abhiram, Sandhu, Gurpreet S., Gulati, Rajiv, Singh, Mandeep, Lerman, Amir, Gersh, Bernard J., Holmes, David R., Barsness, Gregory W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8120407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33704924
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13281
_version_ 1783692088206950400
author Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
Verghese, Dhiran
Bell, Malcolm R.
Murphree, Dennis H.
Cheungpasitporn, Wisit
Miller, Paul Elliott
Dunlay, Shannon M.
Prasad, Abhiram
Sandhu, Gurpreet S.
Gulati, Rajiv
Singh, Mandeep
Lerman, Amir
Gersh, Bernard J.
Holmes, David R.
Barsness, Gregory W.
author_facet Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
Verghese, Dhiran
Bell, Malcolm R.
Murphree, Dennis H.
Cheungpasitporn, Wisit
Miller, Paul Elliott
Dunlay, Shannon M.
Prasad, Abhiram
Sandhu, Gurpreet S.
Gulati, Rajiv
Singh, Mandeep
Lerman, Amir
Gersh, Bernard J.
Holmes, David R.
Barsness, Gregory W.
author_sort Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
collection PubMed
description AIMS: There are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI‐CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI‐CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: Using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI‐CS admissions receiving pre‐hospital/in‐hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI‐CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in‐hospital mortality, development of non‐cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do‐not‐resuscitate status. RESULTS: During 2009–2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non‐White, with lower co‐morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all‐cause in‐hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity‐matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90–1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do‐not‐resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in‐hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI‐CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8120407
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81204072021-05-21 Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra Verghese, Dhiran Bell, Malcolm R. Murphree, Dennis H. Cheungpasitporn, Wisit Miller, Paul Elliott Dunlay, Shannon M. Prasad, Abhiram Sandhu, Gurpreet S. Gulati, Rajiv Singh, Mandeep Lerman, Amir Gersh, Bernard J. Holmes, David R. Barsness, Gregory W. ESC Heart Fail Original Research Articles AIMS: There are limited contemporary data on the use of initial fibrinolysis in ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock (STEMI‐CS). This study sought to compare the outcomes of STEMI‐CS receiving initial fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: Using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample from 2009 to 2017, a comparative effectiveness study of adult (>18 years) STEMI‐CS admissions receiving pre‐hospital/in‐hospital fibrinolysis were compared with those receiving PPCI. Admissions with alternate indications for fibrinolysis and STEMI‐CS managed medically or with surgical revascularization (without fibrinolysis) were excluded. Outcomes of interest included in‐hospital mortality, development of non‐cardiac organ failure, complications, hospital length of stay, hospitalization costs, use of palliative care, and do‐not‐resuscitate status. RESULTS: During 2009–2017, 5297 and 110 452 admissions received initial fibrinolysis and PPCI, respectively. Compared with those receiving PPCI, the fibrinolysis group was more often non‐White, with lower co‐morbidity, and admitted on weekends and to small rural hospitals (all P < 0.001). In the fibrinolysis group, 95.3%, 77.4%, and 15.7% received angiography, PCI, and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. The fibrinolysis group had higher rates of haemorrhagic complications (13.5% vs. 9.9%; P < 0.001). The fibrinolysis group had comparable all‐cause in‐hospital mortality [logistic regression analysis: 28.8% vs. 28.5%; propensity‐matched analysis: 30.8% vs. 30.3%; adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.90–1.05); P = 0.50]. The fibrinolysis group had comparable rates of acute organ failure, hospital length of stay, rates of palliative care referrals, do‐not‐resuscitate status use, and lesser hospitalization costs. CONCLUSIONS: The use of initial fibrinolysis had comparable in‐hospital mortality than those receiving PPCI in STEMI‐CS in the contemporary era in this large national observational study. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8120407/ /pubmed/33704924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13281 Text en © 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Research Articles
Vallabhajosyula, Saraschandra
Verghese, Dhiran
Bell, Malcolm R.
Murphree, Dennis H.
Cheungpasitporn, Wisit
Miller, Paul Elliott
Dunlay, Shannon M.
Prasad, Abhiram
Sandhu, Gurpreet S.
Gulati, Rajiv
Singh, Mandeep
Lerman, Amir
Gersh, Bernard J.
Holmes, David R.
Barsness, Gregory W.
Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock
title Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock
title_full Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock
title_fullStr Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock
title_full_unstemmed Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock
title_short Fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock
title_sort fibrinolysis vs. primary percutaneous coronary intervention for st‐segment elevation myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock
topic Original Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8120407/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33704924
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.13281
work_keys_str_mv AT vallabhajosyulasaraschandra fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT verghesedhiran fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT bellmalcolmr fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT murphreedennish fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT cheungpasitpornwisit fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT millerpaulelliott fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT dunlayshannonm fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT prasadabhiram fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT sandhugurpreets fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT gulatirajiv fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT singhmandeep fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT lermanamir fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT gershbernardj fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT holmesdavidr fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock
AT barsnessgregoryw fibrinolysisvsprimarypercutaneouscoronaryinterventionforstsegmentelevationmyocardialinfarctioncardiogenicshock