scholarly journals Post-Infectious Myocardial Infarction: Does Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Improve Outcomes? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1608
Author(s):  
Alain Putot ◽  
Frédéric Chagué ◽  
Patrick Manckoundia ◽  
Philippe Brunel ◽  
Jean-Claude Beer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Coronary Stenosis ◽  
Acute Infection ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Coronary Care ◽  
Significant Coronary Stenosis ◽  
Post Infectious ◽  
Coronary Care Units

Acute infection is a frequent trigger of myocardial infarction (MI). However, whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves post-infectious MI prognosis is a major but unsolved issue. In this prospective multicenter study from coronary care units, we performed propensity score-matched analysis to compare outcomes in patients with and without PCI for post-infectious MI with angiography-proven significant coronary stenosis (>50%). Among 4573 consecutive MI patients, 476 patients (10%) had a concurrent diagnosis of acute infection at admission, of whom 375 underwent coronary angiography and 321 patients had significant stenosis. Among the 321 patients, 195 underwent PCI. Before the matching procedure, patients without PCI had a similar age and sex ratio but a higher rate of risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, chronic renal failure, and prior coronary artery disease), pneumonia, and SYNTAX score than patients without PCI. After propensity score matching, neither in-hospital mortality (13% with PCI vs. 8% without PCI; p = 0.4) nor one-year mortality (24% with PCI vs. 19% without PCI, p = 0.5) significantly differed between the two groups. In this first prospective cohort of post-infectious MI in coronary care units, PCI might not improve short- and long-term prognosis in patients with angiography-proven significant coronary stenosis. If confirmed, these results do not argue for systematic invasive procedures after post-infectious MI.

scholarly journals Post-infectious myocardial infarction: does percutaneous coronary intervention improves outcomes?

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Putot ◽  
F Chague ◽  
P Manckoundia ◽  
Y Cottin ◽  
M Zeller
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
One Year ◽  
Post Infectious

Abstract Introduction and objectives Acute infections are frequent triggers for myocardial infarction (MI), and associated with poor prognosis. However, whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves post-infectious MI prognosis remains unknown. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of PCI at the acute phase of post-infectious MI in patients with significant coronary stenosis. Methods Observational study in 4573 consecutive MI patients of the RICO Survey in coronary units, of whom 476 patients (10%) had a concurrent diagnosis of acute infection at admission. Among them, 321 patients with a significant stenosis (>50%) at coronary angiography were analysed. After propensity score matching based on clinical and angiography data, in-hospital and one-year outcomes were compared between patients with and without PCI. Results Among the 321 patients (mean age 74y), most (n=195 (61%)) underwent PCI. Acute atherothrombotic event (type 1 MI) and STEMI were much more frequent in the PCI group (53 vs 19%, p<0.001, and 51% vs 32%, p=0.001, respectively). As expected, Troponin Ic peak was almost 3 times higher in the PCI group (17 [4–72] vs 6 [1–20] ng/mL, p<0.001). Coronary lesions were less severe in the PCI group (3-vessels disease: 36% vs 52%, p<0.004; SYNTAX score: 11 [6–19] vs 19 [11–28], p<0.001). At one year follow up, recurrence rate (5% for both groups, p=0.8), and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (15% vs 13%, p=0.6) were similar for both groups. After propensity score matching, in-hospital (OR = 1.45 (0.43–4.85), p=0.5) and 1-year CV mortality: OR = 1.73 (0.66–4.54), p=0.3) were similar in patients with and without PCI. Conclusion In this first observational work investigating treatment strategy in post-infectious MI, PCI might not improve short and long-term prognosis. These findings do not support the use of systematic invasive procedures after post-infectious MI. Interventional studies are urgently needed to confirm these findings. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public Institution(s). Main funding source(s): Agence Régionale de Santé Bourgogne Franche Comté, CHU Dijon Bourgogne

scholarly journals A kórelőzményben szereplő revascularisatiós műtét rövid és hosszú távú prognosztikai jelentősége szívinfarktus miatt kezelt betegekben

2021 ◽  
Vol 162 (5) ◽  
pp. 177-184
Author(s):  
András Jánosi ◽  
Tamás Ferenci ◽  
András Komócsi ◽  
Péter Andréka
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
St Elevation

Összefoglaló. Bevezetés: A szívinfarktust megelőző revascularisatiós beavatkozások prognosztikai jelentőségével kapcsolatban kevés elemzés ismeretes, hazai adatokat eddig nem közöltek. Célkitűzés: A szerzők a Nemzeti Szívinfarktus Regiszter adatait felhasználva elemezték a koszorúér-revascularisatiós szívműtétet (CABG) túlélt betegek prognózisát heveny szívinfarktusban. Módszer: Az adatbázisban 2014. 01. 01. és 2017. 12. 31. között 55 599 beteg klinikai és kezelési adatait rögzítették: 23 437 betegnél (42,2%) ST-elevációval járó infarktus (STEMI), 32 162 betegnél (57,8%) ST-elevációval nem járó infarktus (NSTEMI) miatt került sor a kórházi kezelésre. Vizsgáltuk a CABG után fellépő infarktus miatt kezelt betegek klinikai adatait és prognózisát, amelyeket azon betegek adataival hasonlítottunk össze, akiknél nem szerepelt szívműtét a kórelőzményben (kontrollcsoport). Eredmények: A betegek többsége mindkét infarktustípusban férfi volt (62%, illetve 59%). Az indexinfarktust megelőzően a betegek 5,33%-ánál (n = 2965) történt CABG, amely az NSTEMI-betegeknél volt gyakoribb (n = 2357; 7,3%). A CABG-csoportba tartozó betegek idősebbek voltak, esetükben több társbetegséget (magas vérnyomás, diabetes mellitus, perifériás érbetegség) rögzítettek. Az indexinfarktus esetén a katéteres koszorúér-intervenció a kontrollcsoport STEMI-betegeiben gyakoribb volt a CABG-csoporthoz viszonyítva (84% vs. 71%). Az utánkövetés 12 hónapja során a betegek 4,7–12,2%-ában újabb infarktus, 13,7–17,3%-ában újabb katéteres koszorúér-intervenció történt. Az utánkövetés alatt a CABG-csoportban magasabbnak találtuk a halálozást. A halálozást befolyásoló tényezők hatásának korrigálására Cox-féle regressziós analízist, illetve ’propensity score matching’ módszert alkalmaztunk. Mindkét módszerrel történt elemzés azt mutatta, hogy a kórelőzményben szereplő koszorúér-revascularisatiós műtét nem befolyásolta a túlélést. Amennyiben a beteg kórelőzményében szerepelt a koszorúérműtét, az indexinfarktus nagyobb eséllyel volt NSTEMI, mint STEMI (HR: 1,612; CI 1,464–1,774; p<0,001). Következtetés: A kórelőzményben szereplő koszorúér-revascularisatiós műtét nem befolyásolta a szívinfarktus miatt kezelt betegek életkilátásait. Orv Hetil. 2021; 162(5): 177–184. Summary. Introduction: Little analysis is known about the prognostic significance of revascularization interventions before myocardial infarction; no domestic data have been reported so far. Method: The authors use data from the Hungarian Myocardial Infarction Registry to analyze the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction who had previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Between 01. 01. 2014. and 31. 12. 2017, 55 599 patients were recorded in the Registry: 23 437 patients (42.2%) had ST-elevation infarction (STEMI) and 31 162 patients (57.8%) had non-ST-elevation infarction (NSTEMI). The clinical data and prognosis of patients treated for infarction after CABG were compared with those of patients without a CABG history. Results: The majority of patients were male (59% and 60%, respectively). Prior to index infarction, CABG occurred in 5.33% of patients (n = 2965), which was more common in NSTEMI (n = 2357; 7.3%). The CABG patients were older and had more comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease). For index infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention was more common in STEMI patients in the control group compared to CABG (84% vs. 71%). At 12 months of follow-up, 4.7–12.2% of patients had reinfarction, and 13.7–17.3% had another percutaneous coronary intervention. During the full follow-up, the CABG group had higher mortality. Cox regression analysis and propensity score matching were used to correct for the effect of other factors influencing mortality. Both analyses showed CABG did not affect survival. In the CABG group, the index infarction was more likely to be NSTEMI than STEMI (HR: 1.612; CI 1.464–1.774; p<0.001). Conclusion: The history of CABG does not affect the life expectancy of patients treated for an acute myocardial infarction. Orv Hetil. 2021; 162(5): 177–184.

P3123Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Graca Santos ◽  
R Ribeiro Carvalho ◽  
F Montenegro ◽  
C Ruivo ◽  
J Correia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention ◽  
Coronary Intervention ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Group A ◽  
St Elevation ◽  
Group B

Abstract Background The use of intravenous enoxaparin (LBWH) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) was upgraded in the latest European Guidelines to a class IIa recommendation. Purpose The authors aim to compare safety and prognostic impact of LMWH versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) use in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Methods Retrospective study of 3875 STEMI patients who underwent pPCI between October 2010 and September 2017 and were included in a national multicenter registry. Group A consisted of patients managed only with LMWH, and Group B patients were treated with UFH regardless of eventual LMWH associated exposure. The groups were compared according to their demographic, clinical and laboratory characteristics. The primary endpoint (PE) results from a composite which included: procedural failure (pPCI failure or bailout use of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors), in-hospital mortality, re-infarction or major bleeding (according to the registry criteria). The secondary endpoint (SE) included: in-hospital major bleeding, need for red blood cell transfusion, or haemoglobin drop ≥2g/dL. A 1:1 propensity score (PS) analysis was performed according to demographic variables, medical history and previous medication, physical examination, electrocardiogram characteristics and left ventricular function, matching 1558 of the 3875 patients for later comparison between groups. Results Overall, Group A included 1083 (27.9%) and Group B 2792 (72.1%) patients. The mean age was 63±14 years, and 33.5% of the cohort were female. Despite the baseline characteristics heterogeneity between groups, this phenomenon was not observed after PS matching. The PE was more frequent in Group A, without reaching statistical relevance (15.6% vs 13.3%, p=0.07). The SE was superior in Group A (34.4 vs 29.4%, p=0.01). According to the PS matching analysis, there were no differences beetween groups in terms of the PE (13.9% vs 12.0%, p=0.28), while the SE kept more frequent among Group A (34.9% vs 28.5%, p=0.02) [Figure]. Propensity score: group comparison Conclusion In this study based on a national multicentric registry of STEMI patients, the use of LMWH was not associated with better in-hospital prognosis in terms of major cardiovascular events and was related with higher rates of bleeding related events in the scenario of pPCI, compared to UFH. According to these results, further studies are required to support the widespread use of LMWH in this clinical scenario.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document