(Circulation. 2000;101:2239.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical Investigation and Reports |
Lack of Benefit for Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients With Myocardial Infarction Who Are Older Than 75 Years
From the Departments of Medicine (D.R.T., J.C., S.P.S., G.G., N.R.P.), Epidemiology (J.C., N.R.P.), Biostatistics (J.C.), and Health Policy and Management (N.R.P.), the Program for Medical Technology and Practice Assessment (D.R.T.), and the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research (J.C., N.R.P.), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md; Maryland HealthCare Associates, LLC, Clinton, Md (W.J.O.); and the Delmarva Foundation for Medical Care, Inc (W.J.O.), Easton, Md.
Correspondence to David R. Thiemann, MD, Division of Cardiology, Carnegie 568, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD 21287-6568. E-mail dthieman{at}mail.jhmi.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background—The benefit of intravenous thrombolytic therapy in elderly patients with myocardial infarction is uncertain. There are no randomized trials of thrombolytic efficacy or observational studies of clinical effectiveness that focus specifically on the elderly.
Methods and Results—To determine whether thrombolytic therapy for elderly patients is associated with a survival advantage in a large observational database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 7864 Medicare fee-for-service patients aged 65 to 86 years with the primary discharge diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction who were admitted with clinical and ECG indications for thrombolytic therapy and no absolute contraindications. The study included all US acute care nongovernment hospitals without on-site angioplasty capability. Using proportional-hazards methods, we found that in a comprehensive multivariate model, there was a significant interaction (P<0.001) between age and the effect of thrombolytic therapy on 30-day mortality rates. For patients 65 to 75 years old, thrombolytic therapy was associated with a survival benefit, consistent with randomized trials. Among patients aged 76 to 86 years, thrombolytic therapy was associated with a survival disadvantage, with a 30-day mortality hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.71, P=0.003). For these patients, there was no benefit from thrombolytic therapy in any clinical subgroup.
Conclusions—In nationwide clinical practice, thrombolytic therapy for patients >75 years old is unlikely to confer survival benefit and may have a significant survival disadvantage. Reperfusion research that is focused on elderly patients is urgently needed.
Key Words: myocardial infarction • thrombolysis • angioplasty • epidemiology
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Although patients >75 years old compose
30% of
patients with myocardial infarction (MI),1 the role of
intravenous thrombolysis in this age group
is uncertain. Published subgroup analyses2 and
meta-analyses3 suggest a benefit for
thrombolytic therapy in the elderly without
statistically significant conclusions. There are no randomized
trials or observational studies that focus specifically on elderly
patients with MI, and the clinical effectiveness for any therapy may
diverge from efficacy in randomized trials.4 We conducted a retrospective cohort study of thrombolytic therapy using a database compiled by the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) for its Cooperative Cardiovascular Project (CCP). This cohort is uniquely suited to study actual clinical practice because it contains a nearly 100% nationwide sample of elderly fee-for-service patients with MI, with extensive clinical data, blinded data abstraction, and reliable long-term follow-up.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The CCP methods are described elsewhere.5 6 7 Briefly, for each US acute care hospital for a continuous 8-month sampling period between February 1994 and July 1995, HCFA identified from administrative data all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with the principal discharge diagnosis of MI. Using photocopied medical records, trained abstracters entered
170 historical, clinical,
and demographic data elements into an electronic database.
To reduce potential selection biases, we limited the analysis
to patients aged 
65 years, who were admitted from home, a clinic, or
a physician’s office with a verified MI. We excluded duplicate
admissions, interhospital transfers, admissions from nursing and
retirement homes, and patients whose MIs occurred after admission. To
eliminate selection biases associated with primary angioplasty, for
which intention-to-treat data are not available, we excluded patients
at hospitals with on-site angioplasty capability. An exploratory
analysis was used to study same-day angioplasty (or next-day
angioplasty within 6 hours of arrival) without antecedent
thrombolytic agents because the CCP database does not
include times for many angioplasty procedures.
We limited analysis to patients who presented within 12
hours of symptom onset and who had ECG ST-segment elevation in 2
contiguous leads, with 1.5 mm in limb leads (to exclude
borderline ECGs) and 2 mm in precordial leads. We excluded
patients with coma on arrival, preexisting dementia, terminal illness,
serum urea nitrogen level of >25 mmol/L (70 mg/dL), or inability
to walk independently. We also excluded patients with left
bundle-branch block, because CCP data cannot distinguish between old
and new left bundle-branch block, and those with absolute
contraindications to thrombolysis.8
Because the benefit of thrombolytic therapy in
cardiogenic shock is uncertain,9 we excluded patients with
a systolic blood pressure of <90 mm Hg on arrival. We
excluded patients who did not receive aspirin and heparin, which are
typically administered regardless of thrombolytic
treatment. Survival information was obtained from hospital records
and the Social Security Administration’s Enrollment Database.
We defined thrombolytic patients as those receiving an intravenous thrombolytic agent within 4 hours of admission. MI was deemed present if patients had a creatine kinase–MB fraction of >0.05 or any 2 of these 3 criteria: chest pain, doubling of the total serum creatine kinase, or ECG evidence of acute MI.
Statistical Analysis
Because thrombolytic benefit occurs entirely
within 30 days after MI,10 our primary end point was
30-day mortality. Our published multivariate
model,7 which combined 33 clinical, historical, and health
system variables previously linked to 30-day mortality after
MI,11 12 was modified in 2 respects. We added a
variable for the maximum amplitude of ST-segment elevation and
omitted physician specialty (because cardiology
specialty often is required for thrombolytic agents).
All independent variables had Spearman correlations of <0.5. We
performed alternative analyses without clinical exclusion
criteria, without missing categorical variables, and limited to
variables significant at the P<0.001 level in
multivariate analysis within the study
population. The results were unchanged.
To avoid skewing due to the inclusion of very aged patients, we divided the population into cohorts of patients aged 65 to 75 and 76 to 86 years for our primary proportional-hazards analysis (SAS version 6.12, SAS Institute). We used logistic regression to measure possible selection or referral bias by calculating predicted mortality rates for patients who received thrombolytic agents and for those who did not. The logistic model, stratified by age cohort, predicted mortality rates on the basis of individual clinical covariate data while recoding the "thrombolytic" variable to "no thrombolytics," thus integrating all clinical variables while neutralizing the effect of thrombolytic therapy.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Patient Characteristics
The original data set contained 234 769 admissions for 210 996 patients, of whom 31 267 were admitted in transfer from other hospitals, 81 499 were admitted to hospitals with on-site percutaneous angioplasty capability, and 26 899 had clinical exclusions. We also excluded 6156 patients older than 86 years and 5337 patients whose charts lacked ECG tracings.
In the remaining group of 59 838 patients, 18 659 patients (32% of
those aged 65 to 75 and 30% of those aged 76 to 86 years) met our ECG
criteria, reflecting the preponderance of non–Q wave MIs among the
elderly.13 Older patients had more exclusions for poor
functional status and thrombolytic contraindications
(Table 1
). The final study cohort
included 5191 patients aged 65 to 75 years and 2673 patients aged 76 to
86 years, representing 48% and 34% of patients,
respectively, with eligible ECGs. Multivariate
analysis excluded 1.5% of the study cohort (117 patients) due
to missing data. Missing rates for clinical variables were <5%,
with the exception of serum albumin and chest radiographs,
which were missing for 5% and 23% of patients, respectively. Median
follow-up for survivors was 906 days.
|
Seventy-four percent of study patients aged 65 to 75 years and 60% of
patients aged 76 to 86 years received thrombolytic
agents within 4 hours of presentation. In the younger
thrombolytic group, 77.1% of patients received tissue
plasminogen activator (t-PA) and 22.3%
received streptokinase compared with 72.6% and 26.3%, respectively,
in the older group. Demographic and clinical characteristics of study
patients are presented in Table 2. In both age cohorts, patients who
received thrombolytic agents were considerably
healthier than those managed with heparin and aspirin alone, as
previously recognized,14 with a greater proportion of
Killip class I and II MIs and lower rates of anterior MI. However,
thrombolytic patients had somewhat larger MIs on ECG,
with 0.5-mm greater maximum ST-segment elevation. Logistically
predicted mortality rates markedly favored thrombolytic
patients. Among patients aged 65 to 75 years, the 30-day predicted
mortality rate for patients treated with thrombolytic
agents was 7.8% versus 9.6% for patients not treated with
thrombolytic agents; among patients aged 76 to 86
years, the predicted rates were 13.6% versus 15.3%, respectively.
|
Patient Survival
The relationship between thrombolytic therapy and
unadjusted mortality rate at 30 days after discharge differed markedly
by age. In the younger cohort, patients treated with
thrombolytic agents had a crude mortality rate of 6.8%
compared with 9.8% for patients not treated with
thrombolytic agents. Among older patients, the ratio
was reversed: the crude mortality rate for patients treated with
thrombolytic agents was 18.0% compared with 15.4% for
patients not treated with thrombolytic agents. The
1-year mortality rate was determined in large part on the basis of
underlying comorbidity and illness severity, as suggested by the
logistically predicted mortality rates: in the younger group, the crude
1-year mortality rate was 10.9% among patients treated with
thrombolytic agents versus 17.7% for patients not
treated with thrombolytic agents compared with 25.6%
and 31.4%, respectively, in older patients.
Crude 30-day Kaplan-Meier survival curves (Figure 1) showed that in the younger cohort,
mortality rates were virtually identical during the first 4 days for
the groups who received or did not receive thrombolytic
agents, with a progressive thrombolytic advantage
thereafter. In the older cohort, there was an immediate survival
disadvantage within the first 2 days for patients treated with
thrombolytic agents.
|
In proportional-hazards analysis of 30-day survival rates, the
interaction between age as a continuous variable and
thrombolytic therapy was highly significant
(P<0.001), a finding that was confirmed with stratified
analysis (Table 3). For patients
aged 65 to 75 years, the use of thrombolytic agents was
associated with a consistent survival advantage, with hazard
ratios ranging from 0.76 (P=0.02) to 0.88
(P=0.29), depending on the statistical model. For older
patients, thrombolytic therapy was associated with a
survival disadvantage, with a hazard ratio ranging from 1.29
(P=0.01) to 1.38 (P=0.003).
|
The addition to the comprehensive statistical model of a centered term
for the interaction between age and thrombolytic agents
(Figure 2) showed that the hazard ratio
for thrombolytic therapy was 1.00 at age 74.3 and
increased by a factor of 1.056 per year (95% CI 1.030 to 1.083,
P<0.001). The hazard ratio was 0.60 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.82,
P<0.001) at age 65 and 1.36 (1.13 to 1.64,
P=0.001) at age 80. The results were essentially identical
when the simple multivariate model was used.
|
, Individual hazard ratios calculated with data from each
3-year age subgroup with same model without an interaction term.The age-related relative difference was minimally changed in extensive sensitivity analyses, which excluded patients who had undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation before admission (n=155), who had delirium on admission (n=47), or who underwent angioplasty on the day of admission (n=30); recoded to thrombolytic therapy patients who received thrombolytic agents >4 hours after admission; and included patients regardless of mobility status and use of aspirin or heparin, in models that included each of these variables. When we included all 13 955 patients who met Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries trial (GUSTO-I)15 ECG criteria for thrombolysis, who did not have absolute contraindications, and who had symptom onset within 12 hours of presentation, regardless of renal function, initial blood pressure, mobility status, and aspirin or heparin use, the thrombolytic hazard ratio in the cohort aged 65 to 75 years was 1.05 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.24) compared with 1.46 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.70) among patients aged 76 to 86, for a difference of a factor of 1.39.
Both within our study cohort and in a broader multivariate analysis of 21 426 CCP patients <87 years old who received thrombolytic agents, t-PA was slightly more effective than streptokinase (hazard ratio 0.92 in the broader CCP cohort, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.02, P=0.10), without a discernible interaction between age and thrombolytic agent. The survival disadvantage of thrombolytic agents in older patients was unchanged after we limited the analysis to patients who received t-PA.
At hospitals that offered on-site angioplasty (Table 4), within each age cohort, overall rates
of reperfusion therapy (with either thrombolytic agents
or same-day angioplasty) were nearly identical to those at
lower-technology hospitals. Among patients >75 years old, there was a
trend toward a 30-day survival disadvantage for the use of
thrombolytic agents, with a hazard ratio of 1.39 (95%
CI 0.93 to 2.08, P=0.11) compared with same-day angioplasty.
This finding should be interpreted cautiously because of potential
selection bias that involves primary angioplasty.
|
Subgroup Analysis Based on Clinical
Characteristics
The interaction between age and thrombolytic therapy was stronger
for women than for men (Table 5), although the difference was not
statistically significant and the crossover age at which there was no
thrombolytic effect (hazard ratio 1.00) was essentially the same for
both sexes. For women, the hazard for thrombolytic therapy increased by
a factor of 1.082 for each year of increasing age (95% CI 1.045 to
1.122, P<0.001), compared with 1.027 (95% CI 0.991 to
1.065, P=0.33) for men. In the younger
cohort, several groups tended to have
particular benefit from thrombolytic agents, including
patients with Killip class II and III MIs, with a greater magnitude of
ST-segment elevation, and with no contraindications to
thrombolysis. Surprisingly, younger patients with an
anterior MI did not have the disproportionate benefit shown in
randomized trials, with a thrombolytic hazard ratio of
1.04 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.42). There was a survival advantage among
patients with anterior MI aged 65 to 66 years (hazard ratio 0.51, 95%
CI 0.19 to 1.39, P=0.19), with a rapidly diminishing benefit
with increased age (P<0.001 for age interaction within the
subgroup). Among older patients, no clinical subgroup had a survival
benefit from thrombolytic agents.
|
Although the CCP database does not include the cause of death, the data
suggest that bleeding and intracerebral
hemorrhage account for about one fifth of the survival
disadvantage among older patients treated with
thrombolytic agents. The CCP database noted red blood
cell transfusions (Table 2
), which were administered to 7.0% of
patients treated with thrombolytic agents aged 76 to 86
years compared with 4.3% of comparable patients not treated with
thrombolytic agents. The database also noted new
cerebrovascular events, without causes. The stroke rate was 1.4% among
younger patients treated with thrombolytic agents and
2.7% among patients aged 76 to 86 compared with 0.8% and 1.5%,
respectively, for patients not treated with
thrombolytic agents. The survival disadvantage for
older CCP patients treated with thrombolytic agents
remained significant (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.64,
P=0.02) after the exclusion of patients with transfusion or
stroke.
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The observational CCP database allows empiric evaluation of the general consensus that elderly patients with MI benefit from thrombolytic therapy.16 17 The adverse effects of thrombolytic agents (eg, stroke, bleeding, and cardiac rupture) are accepted complications of MI and of the use of thrombolytic agents, so regulatory postmarketing surveillance is unlikely to detect excess deaths.
Our findings suggest that patients with MI who are >75 years old are
unlikely to have a clinically significant benefit from the use of
intravenous thrombolytic agents and may
have a survival disadvantage. The 30-day hazard ratio for this cohort
was 1.38 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.71, P=0.003). By contrast, with
the use of identical methods for patients aged 65 to 75, we found a
hazard ratio of 0.88 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.12), which is concordant with
the 0.83 odds ratio for thrombolytic agents versus
placebo in a large meta-analysis.3 The
survival hazard for thrombolytic agents increased
progressively with age (Figure 2).
Our analysis has the strengths and weaknesses of all observational studies. Some eligible patients doubtless did not receive thrombolytic agents for unmeasured reasons, such as spontaneous reperfusion, smaller infarctions, or frailty. Our predicted-mortality analysis suggests that the combined effect of measured factors actually favors patients treated with thrombolytic agents, but selection bias nevertheless limits direct comparisons between thrombolytic and nonthrombolytic populations.
However, there is no reason to believe that selection biases are fundamentally different in adjacent age cohorts. Rates of thrombolytic use are roughly comparable, yet the outcomes in the 2 age cohorts are strikingly different: in the younger cohort, the crude mortality rate for patients treated with thrombolytic agents was 6.8% versus 9.8% for patients not treated with thrombolytic agents, and the respective rates were 18.0% versus 15.4% in the older cohort. This reversal was not explained by measured clinical differences in comorbidity, clinical history, or MI severity.
Our finding of no benefit for thrombolytic therapy in patients >75 years old is consistent with subgroup analyses of randomized trials that compared the use of intravenous thrombolytic agents with primary angioplasty. In both the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes trial (GUSTO-IIb)18 and a meta-analysis of smaller randomized trials,19 there was disproportionate benefit for primary angioplasty among patients >70 years old, a finding that may reflect a survival disadvantage for thrombolytic agents in this age group.
However, our results differ from nonsignificant trends in randomized trials of intravenous thrombolysis. Both the meta-analysis of early randomized trials by the Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’3 (FTT) and a subgroup analysis2 of the GUSTO-I trial found that patients >75 years old had a nonsignificant trend toward an absolute benefit of 1 to 2 lives saved per 100 patients treated, albeit with diminished relative benefit among older patients: in the FTT meta-analysis, the odds ratio for patients >75 years old was 1.14 times that for patients aged 65 to 74, whereas in GUSTO-I, the odds ratio for patients aged 75 to 85 who received t-PA was 1.18 times the ratio for patients aged 65 to 74. By comparison, in the present study, the adjusted hazard ratio for patients aged 76 to 86 years compared with those aged 65 to 75 was increased by a factor of 1.70 with the simple model and by a factor of 1.57 with the comprehensive model.
The differences between our findings and the results of randomized trials probably are multifactorial. Most important, the CCP is a study of actual effectiveness in nationwide clinical practice. Randomized trials typically enroll healthier patients: even in GUSTO-I, the most inclusive thrombolytic trial, patients aged 75 to 85 years were healthier than the comparable CCP cohort, with lower rates of diabetes, prior bypass surgery, anterior infarction, and Killip class III infarction. Our findings were minimally changed with the use of GUSTO-I inclusion criteria.
In addition, randomized trials enforce consistency in medical treatment. Older patients in nationwide practice hypothetically could receive poorer postthrombolytic care than both patients in randomized trials and younger patients, although CCP quality indicators and discharge medications show no evidence of such discrimination. Randomized trial data do suggest that anticoagulation is a special concern in older patients treated with thrombolytic agents: in GUSTO-I, the mean activated partial thromboplastin time 12 hours after thrombolytic agent administration for patients <65 years old was 78.2±44.5 seconds compared with 103.4±52 seconds for patients 75 to 85 years old, a difference that persisted at 24 hours. Variable anticoagulation or thrombolytic dosing could contribute to excess mortality rates.
Thrombolytic trials also have some inherent methodological limitations. The GUSTO-I subgroup analysis suggested that for patients 75 to 85 years old, front-loaded intravenous t-PA plus heparin is superior to streptokinase plus heparin but could not evaluate the possibility that in this cohort both agents are inferior to heparin and aspirin alone. In the FTT meta-analysis, 55% of patients were enrolled in trials that did not routinely administer heparin and 26% were in trials that did not routinely administer aspirin, so the control group did not have the full benefit of antiplatelet therapy20 or heparin. Randomized trials may be skewed toward younger patients even within the subgroup of patients >75 years old, who represent the tail of a skewed distribution, whereas the CCP reflects the actual age distribution of elderly patients with MI. In addition, elderly patients in research studies may have a shorter symptom-to-presentation interval than do patients in general clinical practice.
There are several possible mechanisms for the apparent lack of
thrombolytic benefit among CCP patients >75 years old.
CCP rates of stroke21 and bleeding22 among
older patients treated with thrombolytic agents are
consistent with those in randomized trials. Older patients with
MI have slightly lower rates of TIMI 3 flow in angiographic studies and
higher rates of 3-vessel disease,3 and consequently, they
may have diminished benefit from the use of
thrombolytic agents. In addition, the Gruppo Italiano
per lo Studio Della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico II (GISSI-2)
investigators23 reported an age-related increase in sudden
death from mechanical rupture in patients treated with
thrombolytic agents. Of 84 patients >70 years old who
had no history of prior MI and who died during hospitalization and
underwent autopsy, 86% had cardiac rupture compared with 19% of
comparable patients <60 years old. Such catastrophes might contribute
to the early difference in outcome between older patients treated with
thrombolytic agents and those not treated with
thrombolytic agents (Figure 1B).
Conclusions
We found that among patients 65 to 75 years old, the nationwide
use of thrombolytic therapy in clinical practice had
the survival advantage suggested in randomized trials. In the
application of the same method to patients 76 to 86 years old, we found
that thrombolytic agent use was associated with a crude
survival disadvantage and an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.38 (95% CI
1.12 to 1.71, P=0.003). The relative age differential was
robust throughout inclusive, wide-ranging sensitivity
analyses.
Several years ago, a randomized trial of thrombolytic agent use in the elderly was aborted in large part because clinicians were unwilling to randomize patients to nonthrombolytic therapy.24 CCP data suggest that extrapolation from data for younger patients and reliance on surrogate end points such as angiographic patency may be perilous and that randomized and observational studies of reperfusion therapy that focus specifically on elderly patients with MI are urgently needed.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
This work was supported by the Delmarva Foundation for Medical Care (Easton, Md), the HCFA (Baltimore, Md), and the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation (Baltimore, Md). The analyses on which this report is based were performed under contracts 500-96-P623 and 500-96-P624, entitled "Utilization and Quality Control Peer Review Organization for the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia," sponsored by the HCFA, US Department of Health and Human Services. We are indebted to the many persons and organizations nationwide who designed and conducted the CCP. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US Government.
Received November 12, 1999; revision received December 8, 1999; accepted January 4, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Goldberg RJ, McCormick D, Gurwitz JH, et al. Age-related trends in short- and long-term survival after acute myocardial infarction: a 20-year population-based perspective (1975–1995). Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:1311–1317.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2.
White HD, Barbash GI, Califf RM, et al, for the
GUSTO-I investigators. Age and outcome with contemporary
thrombolytic therapy: results from the GUSTO-I trial.
Circulation. 1996;94:1826–1833.
3. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’ (FTT) Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet. 1994;343:311–322.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4.
Diamond GA, Denton TA. Alternative perspectives on the
biased foundations of medical technology assessment. Ann Intern
Med. 1993;118:455–464.
5.
Marciniak TA, Ellerbeck EF, Radford MJ, et al.
Improving the quality of care for Medicare patients with acute
myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1998;279:1351–1357.
6.
Krumholz HM, Radford MJ, Wang Y, et al. National use
and effectiveness of beta-blockers for the treatment of elderly
patients after acute myocardial infarction: national Cooperative
Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1998;280:623–629.
7.
Thiemann DR, Coresh J, Oetgen WJ, et al. Association
between hospital volume and survival after acute myocardial infarction
in the elderly. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1640–1648.
8.
White HD, Van De Werf FJ. Thrombolysis for
acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1998;97:1632–1646.
9. Holmes DR, Bates ER, Kleiman NS, et al, for the GUSTO-I investigators. Contemporary reperfusion therapy for cardiogenic shock: the GUSTO-I trial experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:668–674.[Abstract]
10.
Franzosi MG, Santoro E, De Vita C, et al, for the
GISSI investigators. Ten-year follow-up of the first megatrial testing
thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial
infarction: results of the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della
Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto-1 study. Circulation. 1998;98:2659–2665.
11.
Normand ST, Glickman ME, Sharma GV, et al. Using
admission characteristics to predict short-term mortality from
myocardial infarction in elderly patients. JAMA. 1996;275:1322–1328.
12.
Lee KL, Woodlief LH, Topol EJ, et al. Predictors of
30-day mortality in the era of reperfusion for acute myocardial
infarction: results from an international trial of 41,021 patients.
Circulation. 1995;91:1659–1668.
13. Goldberg RJ, Gore JM, Gurwitz JH, et al. The impact of age on the incidence and prognosis of initial acute myocardial infarction: the Worcester Heart Attack Study. Am Heart J. 1989;117:543–549.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14.
Pfeffer MS, Moye LA, Braunwald E, et al, for the SAVE
Investigators. Selection bias in the use of
thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.
JAMA. 1991;266:528–532.
15.
The GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized
trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute
myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:673–682.
16.
Ridker PM, Hennekens CH. Age and
thrombolytic therapy. Circulation. 1996;94:1807–1808.
17.
Gurwitz JH, Goldberg RJ. Coronary
thrombolysis for the elderly: is clinical practice
really lagging behind evidence of benefit? JAMA. 1997;277:1723–1724.
18.
Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded
Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO
IIb) Angioplasty Substudy Investigators. A clinical trial comparing
primary coronary angioplasty with tissue
plasminogen activator for acute myocardial
infarction. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1621–1628.
19. O’Neill WW, de Boer MJ, Gibbons RJ, et al. Lessons from the pooled outcome of the PAMI, ZWOLLE and Mayo Clinic randomized trials of primary angioplasty versus thrombolytic therapy of acute myocardial infarction. J Invas Cardiol. 1998;10:4A–10A.
20. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988;2:349–360.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Maggioni AP, Granzosi MG, Santoro E, et al, the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio Della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico II (GISSI-2) and the International Study Group. The risk of stroke in patients with acute myocardial infarction after thrombolytic and antithrombotic treatment. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:1–6.[Abstract]
22.
Berkowitz SD, Granger CB, Pieper KS, et al, for the
Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen
Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)
Investigators. Incidence and predictors of bleeding after contemporary
thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction.
Circulation. 1997;95:2508–2516.
23.
Maggioni AP, Maseri A, Fresco C, et al, for the
Investigators of the Gruppo Italian per lo Studio della Sopravvivenz
nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI-2). Age-related increase in mortality
among patients with first myocardial infarctions treated with
thrombolysis. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1442–1448.
24. Ross AM. The TTOPP study: lessons from an aborted trial. J Myocardial Ischemia. 1990;2:65–69.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  S. G. Goodman, V. Menon, C. P. Cannon, G. Steg, E. M. Ohman, and R. A. Harrington Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition) Chest, June 1, 2008; 133(6_suppl): 708S - 775S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. P. Alexander, L. K. Newby, P. W. Armstrong, C. P. Cannon, W. B. Gibler, M. W. Rich, F. Van de Werf, H. D. White, W. D. Weaver, M. D. Naylor, et al. Acute Coronary Care in the Elderly, Part II: ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology: In Collaboration With the Society of Geriatric Cardiology Circulation, May 15, 2007; 115(19): 2570 - 2589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Lehrke, R. Mazhari, D. J. Durand, M. Zheng, D. Bedja, J. M. Zimmet, K. H. Schuleri, A. S. Chi, K. L. Gabrielson, and J. M. Hare Aging Impairs the Beneficial Effect of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor and Stem Cell Factor on Post-Myocardial Infarction Remodeling Circ. Res., September 1, 2006; 99(5): 553 - 560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. W. Tang, C.-K. Wong, N. J. Restieaux, P. Herbison, M. J. A. Williams, P. Kay, and G. T. Wilkins Clinical outcome of older patients with acute coronary syndrome over the last three decades. Age Ageing, May 1, 2006; 35(3): 280 - 285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 8: Stabilization of the Patient With Acute Coronary Syndromes Circulation, December 13, 2005; 112(24_suppl): IV-89 - IV-110. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. P. Wharton Jr, E. C. Keeley, C. L. Grines, T. P. Wharton Jr, E. C. Keeley, and C. L. Grines The Case for Community Hospital Angioplasty Circulation, November 29, 2005; 112(22): 3509 - 3534. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Evans Scientific aspects of ageing: a lordly report J R Soc Med, November 1, 2005; 98(11): 482 - 483. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. C. Keeley and J. A. de Lemos Free wall rupture in the elderly: deleterious effect of fibrinolytic therapy on the ageing heart Eur. Heart J., September 1, 2005; 26(17): 1693 - 1694. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Bueno, M. Martinez-Selles, E. Perez-David, and R. Lopez-Palop Effect of thrombolytic therapy on the risk of cardiac rupture and mortality in older patients with first acute myocardial infarction Eur. Heart J., September 1, 2005; 26(17): 1705 - 1711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. H. Mehta, C. B. Granger, K. P. Alexander, E. Bossone, H. D. White, and M. H. Sketch Jr Reperfusion strategies for acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: Benefits and risks J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 15, 2005; 45(4): 471 - 478. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Menon, R. A. Harrington, J. S. Hochman, C. P. Cannon, S. D. Goodman, R. G. Wilcox, H. J. Schunemann, and E. M. Ohman Thrombolysis and Adjunctive Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy Chest, September 1, 2004; 126(3_suppl): 549S - 575S. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. C. Keeley and C. L. Grines Primary Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction JAMA, February 11, 2004; 291(6): 736 - 739. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Cohen, G. F. Gensini, F. Maritz, E. P. Gurfinkel, K. Huber, A. Timerman, M. Krzeminska-Pakula, J. Santopinto, C. Hecquet, L. Vittori, et al. Prospective Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes After Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients Who Are Ineligible for Reperfusion Therapy: Preliminary Results From the TETAMI Registry and Randomized Trial Circulation, October 21, 2003; 108(90161): III-14 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Savonitto, P.W. Armstrong, A.M. Lincoff, G. Jia, C.A. Sila, J. Booth, P. Terrosu, C. Cavallini, H.D. White, D. Ardissino, et al. Risk of intracranial haemorrhage with combined fibrinolytic and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy in acute myocardial infarction: Dichotomous response as a function of age in the GUSTO V trial Eur. Heart J., October 2, 2003; 24(20): 1807 - 1814. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J M McLenachan Who would I not give IIb/IIIa inhibitors to during percutaneous coronary intervention? Heart, May 1, 2003; 89(5): 477 - 478. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 U. Stenestrand and L. Wallentin Fibrinolytic Therapy in Patients 75 Years and Older With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: One-Year Follow-up of a Large Prospective Cohort Arch Intern Med, April 28, 2003; 163(8): 965 - 971. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardi, F. Van de Werf, D. Ardissino, A. Betriu, D. V. Cokkinos, E. Falk, K. A.A. Fox, D. Julian, M. Lengyel, F.-J. Neumann, et al. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation Eur. Heart J., January 1, 2003; 24(1): 28 - 66. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. W Savage and K. S Channer Improving the management of acute myocardial infarction BMJ, November 23, 2002; 325(7374): 1185 - 1186. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. W. Smith, J. H. Gurwitz, T. J. McLaughlin, D. Ross-Degnan, C. L. Christiansen, and S. B. Soumerai Thrombolytics Are Not Contraindicated in the Very Old Arch Intern Med, October 14, 2002; 162(18): 2139 - 2140. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. P. Selker, J. R. Beshansky, J. L. Griffith, and for the TPI Trial Investigators* Use of the Electrocardiograph-Based Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument To Assist Thrombolytic and Reperfusion Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Effectiveness Trial Ann Intern Med, July 16, 2002; 137(2): 87 - 95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.-J. de Boer, J.-P. Ottervanger, A. W. J. van't Hof, J. C. A. Hoorntje, H. Suryapranata, F. Zijlstra, and the Zwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group Reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: A randomized comparison of primary angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 5, 2002; 39(11): 1723 - 1728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Thiemann Primary angioplasty for elderly patients with myocardial infarction: Theory, practice and possibilities J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., June 5, 2002; 39(11): 1729 - 1732. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J M Estess and E J Topol Fibrinolytic treatment for elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction Heart, April 1, 2002; 87(4): 308 - 311. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S G Ball Thrombolysis: too old and too young Heart, April 1, 2002; 87(4): 312 - 313. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. B. Soumerai, T. J. McLaughlin, D. Ross-Degnan, C. L. Christiansen, and J. H. Gurwitz Effectiveness of Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Elderly: Cause for Concern in the Old-Old Arch Intern Med, March 11, 2002; 162(5): 561 - 568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Kerigan Fibrinolytic therapy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 1, 2002; 166(6): 708 - 708. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. W. Armstrong Fibrinolytic therapy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction Can. Med. Assoc. J., March 1, 2002; 166(6): 708 - 710. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. J. Brener, U. Zeymer, A. A. J. Adgey, T. R. Vrobel, S. G. Ellis, K.-L. Neuhaus, N. Juran, T. B. Ivanc, E. M. Ohman, J. Strony, et al. Eptifibatide and low-dose tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction: The integrilin and low-dose thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction (INTRO AMI) trial J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., February 6, 2002; 39(3): 377 - 386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Van de Werf, H.V. Barron, P.W. Armstrong, C.B. Granger, S. Berioli, G. Barbash, K. Pehrsson, F.W.A. Verheugt, J. Meyer, A. Betriu, et al. Incidence and predictors of bleeding events after fibrinolytic therapy with fibrin-specific agents. A comparison of TNK-tPA and rt-PA Eur. Heart J., December 2, 2001; 22(24): 2253 - 2261. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. P. SCHULMAN and H. E. FESSLER Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., September 15, 2001; 164(6): 917 - 922. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. W. Armstrong New advances in the management of acute coronary syndromes: 2. Fibrinolytic therapy for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction Can. Med. Assoc. J., September 1, 2001; 165(6): 791 - 797. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A K GITT and J SENGES The patient with acute myocardial infarction who does not receive reperfusion treatment Heart, September 1, 2001; 86(3): 243 - 245. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Y. Lee, K. P. Alexander, B. G. Hammill, S. K. Pasquali, and E. D. Peterson Representation of Elderly Persons and Women in Published Randomized Trials of Acute Coronary Syndromes JAMA, August 8, 2001; 286(6): 708 - 713. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Hamel, G. Pacouret, D. Vincentelli, J. F. Forissier, P. Peycher, J. M. Pottier, and B. Charbonnier Thrombolysis or Heparin Therapy in Massive Pulmonary Embolism With Right Ventricular Dilation : Results From a 128-Patient Monocenter Registry Chest, July 1, 2001; 120(1): 120 - 125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. W. Armstrong and D. Collen Fibrinolysis for Acute Myocardial Infarction : Current Status and New Horizons for Pharmacological Reperfusion, Part 2 Circulation, June 19, 2001; 103(24): 2987 - 2992. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Sleight Overutilization and underutilization of thrombolysis in routine clinical practice J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 1, 2001; 37(6): 1588 - 1589. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-M. Boucher, N. Racine, T. H. Thanh, E. Rahme, J. Brophy, J. LeLorier, and P. Theroux Age-related differences in in-hospital mortality and the use of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 1, 2001; 164(9): 1285 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Thiemann and S. P. Schulman Thrombolytics in elderly patients: A triumph of hope over experience? Can. Med. Assoc. J., May 1, 2001; 164(9): 1301 - 1303. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M Tonkin GENERAL CARDIOLOGY: Evaluation of large scale clinical trials and their application to usual practice Heart, December 1, 2000; 84(6): 679 - 684. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Thrombolysis Ineffective in the Elderly Journal Watch Cardiology, August 4, 2000; 2000(804): 5 - 5. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Is Fibrinolytic Therapy Harmful in the Elderly? Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, July 5, 2000; 2000(705): 1 - 1. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Intravenous Thrombolysis Not Beneficial for the Elderly Journal Watch (General), June 6, 2000; 2000(606): 5 - 5. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Z. Ayanian and E. Braunwald Thrombolytic Therapy for Patients With Myocardial Infarction Who Are Older Than 75 Years : Do the Risks Outweigh the Benefits? Circulation, May 16, 2000; 101(19): 2224 - 2226. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||