One-year follow-up after primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction in diabetic patients. A substudy of the STENT PAMI trial.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis was undertaken to determine the composite incidence of cumulative adverse events (death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, and target vessel revascularization) at the end of the first year after acute myocardial infarction, in diabetic patients who underwent coronary stenting or primary coronary balloon angioplasty. METHODS: From the STENT PAMI trial, we analyzed the 6-month angiographic and 1-year clinical outcomes of 135 diabetic (112, noninsulin dependent) patients who underwent the randomization process of the trial and compared them with 758 nondiabetic patients. RESULTS: Coronary stenting did not significantly reduce the primary composite clinical end point when compared with PTCA (20 vs. 30%, p=0.2). A significant benefit from stenting was observed in patients with noninsulin dependent diabetes, with a trend toward a lesser need for new revascularization procedures (10 vs. 21%, p<.001), with a significant reduction in the primary composite clinical end point at 1 year (12 vs. 28%, p=. 04). At 6 months, the restenosis rate were significantly reduced only in nondiabetic patients (18 vs. 33%, p<. 001). Diabetic patients had the same restenosis rate (38%) either with stenting or balloon PTCA. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary Stenting in diabetics noninsulin dependent offered a significant reduction in the composite incidence of major clinical adverse events compared with balloon PTCA.

A comparative analysis of primary stenting and optimal balloon coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. Six month results from the STENT PAMI trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of balloon PTCA with final coronary stenosis diameter (SD) < or =30 %, with elective coronary stenting. METHODS: We performed a comparative analysis of the 6 month outcomes in patients treated with primary stenting and those who obtained an optimal balloon PTCA result treated during the first 12 hours of AMI onset included in the STENT PAMI randomized trial. RESULTS: The results were analysed into 3 groups: primary stenting (441 patients, SD=22+/-6 %), optimal PTCA (245 patients), and non-optimal PTCA (182 patients, SD= 37+/-5 %). At the end of the 6 months primary stent group presented with the lowest restenosis(23 vs. 31 vs. 45 %, p=0.001, respectively). Ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization rate (TVR) (7 vs. 15.5 vs. 19 %, p=0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: At the 6 month follow-up, primary stenting offered the lowest restenosis and ischemia-driven TVR rates. Compared to optimal balloon PTCA. Non-optimal primary balloon PTCA pts (SD=31-50 %), had the worst late angiographic outcomes and should be treated more actively with coronary stent implantation.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of early discharge after primary angioplasty in low risk patients with acute myocardial infarction. PAMI-II Investigators. Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction.

OBJECTIVES: The second Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI-II) study evaluated the hypothesis that primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), with subsequent discharge from the hospital 3 days later, is safe and cost-effective in low risk patients. BACKGROUND: In low risk patients with myocardial infarction (MI), few data exist regarding the need for intensive care and noninvasive testing or the appropriate length of hospital stay. METHODS: Patients with acute MI underwent emergency catheterization with primary PTCA when appropriate. Low risk patients (age <70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction >45%, one- or two-vessel disease, successful PTCA, no persistent arrhythmias) were randomized to receive accelerated care (admission to a nonintensive care unit and day 3 hospital discharge without noninvasive testing [n = 237] or traditional care [n = 234]). RESULTS: Patients who received accelerated care had similar in-hospital outcomes but were discharged 3 days earlier (4.2+/-2.3 vs. 7.1+/-4.7 days, p = 0.0001) and had lower hospital costs ($9,658+/-5,287 vs. $11,604+/-6,125 p = 0.002) than the patients who received traditional care. At 6 months, accelerated and traditional care groups had a similar rate of mortality (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p = 1.00), unstable ischemia (10.1% vs. 12.0%, p = 0.52), reinfarction (0.8% vs. 0.4%, p = 1.00), stroke (0.4% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.07), congestive heart failure (4.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.85) or their combined occurrence (15.2% vs. 17.5%, p = 0.49). The study was designed to detect a 10% difference in event rates; at 6 months, only a 2.3% difference was measured between groups, indicating an actual power of 0.19. CONCLUSIONS: Early identification of low risk patients with MI allowed safe omission of the intensive care phase and noninvasive testing, and a day 3 hospital discharge strategy, resulting in substantial cost savings.