Relative survival and excess mortality following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND:: High survival rates are commonly reported following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, with most contemporary studies reporting overall survival. AIMS:: The aim of this study was to describe survival following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction corrected for non-cardiovascular deaths by reporting relative survival and investigate clinically significant factors associated with poor long-term outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS:: Using the prospective UK Percutaneous Coronary Intervention registry, primary percutaneous coronary intervention cases ( n=88,188; 2005-2013) were matched to mortality data for the UK populace. Crude five-year relative survival was 87.1% for the patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and 94.7% for patients <55 years. Increasing age was associated with excess mortality up to four years following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (56-65 years: excess mortality rate ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.46-1.79; 66-75 years: 2.49, 2.26-2.75; >75 years: 4.69, 4.27-5.16). After four years, there was no excess mortality for ages 56-65 years (excess mortality rate ratio 1.27, 0.95-1.70), but persisting excess mortality for older groups (66-75 years: excess mortality rate ratio 1.72, 1.30-2.27; >75 years: 1.66, 1.15-2.41). Excess mortality was associated with cardiogenic shock (excess mortality rate ratio 6.10, 5.72-6.50), renal failure (2.52, 2.27-2.81), left main stem stenosis (1.67, 1.54-1.81), diabetes (1.58, 1.47-1.69), previous myocardial infarction (1.52, 1.40-1.65) and female sex (1.33, 1.26-1.41); whereas stent deployment (0.46, 0.42-0.50) especially drug eluting stents (0.27, 0.45-0.55), radial access (0.70, 0.63-0.71) and previous percutaneous coronary intervention (0.67, 0.60-0.75) were protective. CONCLUSIONS:: Following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, long-term cardiovascular survival is excellent. Failure to account for non-cardiovascular death may result in an underestimation of the efficacy of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

In an era of rapid STEMI reperfusion with Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention is there a role for adjunct therapeutic hypothermia? A structured literature review.

Mild hypothermia has been shown to improve neurological outcome and reduce mortality following out of hospital cardiac arrest. In animal models the application of hypothermia with induced coronary occlusion has demonstrated a reduction in infarct size. Consequently, hypothermia has been proposed as a treatment, in addition to Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PPCI) for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there is incomplete understanding of the mechanism and magnitude of the protective effect of hypothermia on the myocardium, and limited outcome data. We undertook a structured literature review of therapeutic hypothermia as adjuvant to PPCI for acute STEMI. We examined the feasibility, safety, impact on infarct size and the resultant effect on major adverse cardiac events and mortality. There were 13 studies between 1946 and 2016. With the exception of one study, therapeutic hypothermia for STEMI was reported to be feasible and safe, and its only demonstrable benefit was a modest reduction in post-infarct heart failure events. Evidence to date, however, is from small clinical trials and in an era of low early mortality following PPCI for STEMI, demonstrating a mortality benefit will be challenging. Post-myocardial infarction left ventricular dysfunction is a more frequent, alternative clinical outcome and therefore any intervention that mitigates this warrants further investigation.

Comparative care and outcomes for acute coronary syndromes in Central and Eastern European Transitional countries: A review of the literature.

AIMS: The purpose of this review was to compare quality of care and outcomes following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in Central and Eastern European Transitional (CEET) countries. METHODS: This was a review of original ACS articles in CEET countries from PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Medline and Embase databases published in English from November 2003 to February 2014. RESULTS: Seventeen manuscripts fulfilled the search criteria. Of 19 CEET countries studied, there were no published ACS management or outcome data for four countries. In-hospital mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) ranged from 6.3% in the Czech Republic to 15.3% in Latvia. In-hospital mortality for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) ranged from 3.0% in Poland to 20.7% in Romania. For STEMI, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) ranged from 1.0% to over 92.0%, fibrinolytic therapy from 0.0% to 49.6%, and no reperfusion therapy from 7.0% to 63.0%. CONCLUSION: Many CEET countries do not have published ACS care and outcomes data. Of those that do, there is evidence for substantial geographical variation in early mortality. Wide variation in emergency reperfusion strategies for STEMI suggests that acute cardiac care is likely to be modifiable and if addressed could reduce mortality from ACS in CEET countries. The collection of ACS care and outcomes data across Europe must be prioritised.

Risk stratification for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction in the era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Acute coronary syndromes presenting with ST elevation are usually treated with emergency reperfusion/revascularisation therapy. In contrast current evidence and national guidelines recommend risk stratification for non ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with the decision on revascularisation dependent on perceived clinical risk. Risk stratification for STEMI has no recommendation. Statistical risk scoring techniques in NSTEMI have been demonstrated to improve outcomes however their uptake has been poor perhaps due to questions over their discrimination and concern for application to individuals who may not have been adequately represented in clinical trials. STEMI is perceived to carry sufficient risk to warrant emergency coronary intervention [by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)] even if this results in a delay to reperfusion with immediate thrombolysis. Immediate thrombolysis may be as effective in patients presenting early, or at low risk, but physicians are poor at assessing clinical and procedural risks and currently are not required to consider this. Inadequate data on risk stratification in STEMI inhibits the option of immediate fibrinolysis, which may be cost-effective. Currently the mode of reperfusion for STEMI defaults to emergency angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention ignoring alternative strategies. This review article examines the current risk scores and evidence base for risk stratification for STEMI patients. The requirements for an ideal STEMI risk score are discussed.

Comparative outcomes after unprotected left main stem percutaneous coronary intervention: a national linked cohort study of 5,065 acute and elective cases from the BCIS Registry (British Cardiovascular Intervention Society).

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to report outcomes from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to an unprotected left main stem (UPLMS) stenosis according to presenting syndrome, including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS), and chronic stable angina (CSA). BACKGROUND: There are no published whole-country data concerning patient outcomes following PCI to UPLMS. METHODS: This study is a prospective national cohort study using data from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) registry from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2010. RESULTS: Of 5,065 patients having PCI to an UPLMS, 784 (15.5%) presented with STEMI, 2,381 (47.0%) with NSTEACS, and 1,900 (37.5%) with CSA. Crude 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were STEMI: 28.3% and 37.6%, NSTEACS: 8.9% and 19.5%, and CSA: 1.4% and 7.0%, respectively. Unadjusted in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event rates were STEMI: 26.6%, NSTEACS: 6.6%, and CSA: 3.3%. Risk of 30-day mortality was much greater for STEMI and NSTEACS patients than CSA (STEMI adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 29.45, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.37 to 44.80, NSTEACS aOR: 6.45, 95% CI: 4.27 to 9.76). More than 40% of patients presenting with STEMI had cardiogenic shock, in whom mortality was higher than in STEMI cases without shock (30 days: 52.0% vs. 11.7%, 1 year: 61.1% vs. 20.9%). Radial access, compared with the femoral approach, was associated with a lower risk of 30-day mortality (STEMI aOR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.62; NSTEACS aOR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of the patients who received UPLMS PCI were acute where outcomes were much worse than elective cases. Cardiogenic shock is common in STEMI patients, of whom more than one-half die at 30 days. The radial approach was associated with reduced early mortality in acute cases.

Acute coronary syndrome management in older adults: guidelines, temporal changes and challenges.

Advancing age is a risk factor for the development of coronary artery disease and is an important indicator of outcome after acute coronary syndrome. As the number of older adults increases, the burden of cardiovascular disease is set to grow particularly as older adults remain disadvantaged in the delivery of acute cardiac care. This article reviews the temporal changes in the provision of guideline recommended therapies for the management of acute coronary syndrome, discusses reasons for age-dependent inequalities in care and the challenges facing clinicians.