ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Following Fibrinolytic Administration
You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.
| Myocardial infarction Classification and external resources | |
 | |
|---|---|
| Diagram of a myocardial infarction (2) of the tip of the anterior wall of the heart (an apical infarct) after occlusion (1) of a branch of the left coronary artery (LCA, right coronary artery = RCA). | |
| ICD-10 | I21.-I22. |
| ICD-9 | 410 |
| DiseasesDB | 8664 |
| MedlinePlus | 000195 |
| eMedicine | med/1567 emerg/327 ped/2520 |
| Cardiology Network |
 Discuss ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Following Fibrinolytic Administration further in the WikiDoc Cardiology Network |
| Adult Congenital |
|---|
| Biomarkers |
| Cardiac Rehabilitation |
| Congestive Heart Failure |
| CT Angiography |
| Echocardiography |
| Electrophysiology |
| Cardiology General |
| Genetics |
| Health Economics |
| Hypertension |
| Interventional Cardiology |
| MRI |
| Nuclear Cardiology |
| Peripheral Arterial Disease |
| Prevention |
| Public Policy |
| Pulmonary Embolism |
| Stable Angina |
| Valvular Heart Disease |
| Vascular Medicine |
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Phone:617-525-6884
Associate Editor-In-Chief: Cafer Zorkun, M.D., Ph.D. [2] Phone:617-525-7431
A. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Failed Fibrinolysis
Mechanism of Benefit
Pharmacological reperfusion with full dose fibrinolysis is not uniformly successful in restoring antegrade flow in the infarct artery. In such situations, a strategy of prompt coronary angiography with intent to perform PCI is frequently contemplated. In certain patients, such as those with cardiogenic shock (especially those less than 75 years of age), severe congestive heart failure / pulmonary edema, or hemodynamically compromising ventricular arrhythmias (regardless of age), a strategy of coronary angiography with intent to perform PCI is a useful approach regardless of the time since initiation of fibrinolytic therapy,
In patients who do not exhibit the clinical instability noted above, PCI may also be reasonable if there is clinical suspicion of failure of fibrinolysis. This is referred to as rescue PCI. Critical to the success of rescue PCI is the initial clinical identification of patients who are suspected of having failed reperfusion with full dose fibrinolysis. Because the presence or absence of ischemic discomfort may be unreliable for identifying failed reperfusion, clinicians should search for evidence of inadequate ST segment resolution on the 12 lead electrocardiogram.
The 12 lead ECG should be monitored and re-evaluated after adequate time has elapsed before it is decided that fibrinolytic therapy has not been effective. Although earlier times have been used in some studies, the 2007 ACC/AHA guidelines for STEMI suggests that 90 minutes after initiation of fibrinolysis is the best time point for evaluating the need for rescue PCI; hence, if there is <50% ST segment resolution in the lead showing the greatest degree of ST segment elevation at presentation, fibrinolytic therapy has likely failed to produce reperfusion.
Clinical Trial Data
MERLIN (Middlesbrough Early Revascularization to Limit INfarction) (n=307), REACT (Rescue Angioplasty versus Conservative Treatment or Repeat Thrombolysis) (n=427), and 3 meta analyses have refocused attention on rescue PCI.[1] [1] [1] [1] This subject has been studied with fewer than 1000 patients enrolled in randomized trials. In the period between trials studying rescue PCI, there was a transition between angiographic and electrocardiographic diagnosis to detect failed reperfusion.
Importantly, in the earlier studies, rescue PCI was performed in infarct arteries with TIMI 0/1 flow, often after a protocol-mandated 90 minute angiogram. In MERLIN and REACT, however, patients were randomized if they had less than 50% ST segment elevation resolution at 60 or 90 minutes, respectively. Many patients had patent infarct arteries on angiography; only 54% of patients in MERLIN and 74% of patients in REACT (which required less than TIMI grade 3 flow for PCI) actually underwent PCI. From a procedural standpoint, stents have replaced balloon angioplasty, antiplatelet therapy has improved with the addition of a thienopyridine agent and often a GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist, and procedural success rates are higher.
Despite these historical differences, recent data support the initial observation that rescue PCI decreases adverse clinical events compared with medical therapy. In the Wijeysundera meta-analysis[1], there was a trend toward reduced mortality rates with rescue PCI from 10.4% to 7.3% (RR 0.69 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.05]; p=0.09), reduced reinfarction rates from 10.7% to 6.1% (RR 0.58 [95% CI 0.35 to 0.97]; p=0.04), and reduced heart failure rates from 17.8% to 12.7% (RR 0.73 [95% CI 0.54 to 1.00]; p=0.05). These event rates suggest that high-risk patients were selected for enrollment, so these data do not inform the clinical community about the role of rescue PCI in lower-risk patients. Also, the benefits of rescue PCI need to be balanced against the risk.
There was an excess occurrence of stroke in 2 trials (10 events vs. 2 events), but the majority of the strokes were thromboembolic rather than hemorrhagic, and the sample size was small, so more data are needed to define this risk. There also was an increase in absolute risk of bleeding of 13%, suggesting that adjustments in antithrombotic medication dosing are needed to improve safety. It should be noted that the majority of patients who underwent rescue PCI received fibrinolytic therapy with streptokinase.
Side Effects
Guidelines (DO NOT EDIT)
Class I
1. A strategy of coronary angiography with intent to perform PCI (or emergency CABG) is recommended for patients who have received fibrinolytic therapy and have any of the following:
a. Cardiogenic shock in patients less than 75 years who are suitable candidates for revascularization (Level of Evidence: B)
b. Severe congestive heart failure and/or pulmonary edema (Killip class III) (Level of Evidence: B)
c. Hemodynamically compromising ventricular arrhythmias (Level of Evidence: C)
Class IIa
1. A strategy of coronary angiography with intent to perform PCI (or emergency CABG) is reasonable in patients 75 years of age or older who have received fibrinolytic therapy, and are in cardiogenic shock, provided that they are suitable candidates for revascularization. (Level of Evidence: B)
2. It is reasonable to perform rescue PCI for patients with 1 or more of the following:
a. Hemodynamic or electrical instability. (Level of Evidence: C)
b. Persistent ischemic symptoms. (Level of Evidence: C)
3. A strategy of coronary angiography with intent to perform rescue PCI is reasonable for patients in whom fibrinolytic therapy has failed (ST segment elevation less than 50% resolved after 90 minutes following initiation of fibrinolytic therapy in the lead showing the worst initial elevation) and a moderate or large area of myocardium at risk (anterior MI, inferior MI with right ventricular involvement or precordial ST segment depression). (Level of Evidence: B)
Class IIb
1. A strategy of coronary angiography with intent to perform PCI in the absence of one or more of the above Class I or IIa indications might be reasonable in moderate and high-risk patients, but its benefits and risks are not well established. The benefits of rescue PCI are greater the earlier it is initiated after the onset of ischemic discomfort. (Level of Evidence: C)
Class III
1. A strategy of coronary angiography with intent to perform PCI (or emergency CABG) is not recommended in patients who have received fibrinolytic therapy if further invasive management is contraindicated or the patient or designee does not wish further invasive care. (Level of Evidence: C)
B. PCI after Successful Fibrinolysis or for Patients not undergoing Primary Reperfusion
Guidelines (Do Not Edit)
Class IIb
PCI of a hemodynamically significant stenosis in a patent infarct artery greater than 24 hours after STEMI may be considered as part of an invasive strategy. (Level of Evidence: B)
Class III
PCI of a totally occluded infarct artery greater than 24 hours after STEMI is not recommended in asymptomatic patients with one or two-vessel disease if they are hemodynamically and electrically stable and do not have evidence of severe ischemia. (Level of Evidence: B)
References
Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content
Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .
