RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains a matter of debate. METHODS: We analyzed the effect of DAPT on 5-year all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular readmission or mortality in a cohort of 1-year survivor STEMI patients. RESULTS: A total of 3107 patients with the diagnosis of STEMI were included: 93% of them were discharged on DAPT, a therapy that persisted in 275 high-risk patients at 5 years. Cardiovascular mortality in patients on single antiplatelet therapy vs DAPT at 5 years was 1.4% vs 3.6% (P <.01), respectively, whereas noncardiovascular mortality was 3.3% vs 5.8% (P=.049) at 5 years. Cardiovascular readmission or mortality in patients with single antiplatelet therapy vs DAPT was 11.4% vs 46.5% (P <.001). Extended DAPT was independently associated with worse 5-year all-cause mortality (HR, 2.16; 95%CI, 1.40-3.33), cardiovascular mortality (HR, 2.83; 95%CI, 1.37-5.84), and cardiovascular readmission or mortality (HR, 5.20; 95%CI, 3.96-6.82). These findings were confirmed in propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the hypothesis that, in 1-year STEMI survivors, extending DAPT up to 5 years in high-risk patients does not improve their long-term prognosis.
Asunto(s)
Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST , Humanos , Inhibidores de Agregación Plaquetaria/uso terapéutico , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/tratamiento farmacológico , Infarto del Miocardio con Elevación del ST/diagnóstico , Resultado del Tratamiento , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) has demonstrated its efficacy in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, patients with STEMI ≥75 years receive less P-PCI than younger patients despite their higher in-hospital morbimortality. The objective of this analysis was to determine the effectiveness of P-PCI in patients with STEMI ≥75 years. METHODS: We included 979 patients with STEMI ≥75 years, from the ATención HOspitalaria del Síndrome coronario study, a registry of 8142 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome admitted at 31 Spanish hospitals in 2014-2016. We calculated a propensity score (PS) for the indication of P-PCI. Patients that received or not P-PCI were matched by PS. Using logistic regression, we compared the effectiveness of performing P-PCI versus non-performance for the composite primary event, which included death, reinfarction, acute pulmonary oedema or cardiogenic shock during hospitalisation. RESULTS: Of the included patients, 81.5 % received P-PCI. The matching provided two groups of 169 patients with and without P-PCI. Compared with its non-performance, P-PCI presented a composite event OR adjusted by PS of 0.55 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving a P-PCI was significantly associated with a reduced risk of major intrahospital complications in patients with STEMI aged 75 years or older.