doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000106684.71725.98
(Circulation. 2003;108:2828.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.
Focused Perspectives |
Selecting the Best Reperfusion Strategy in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
It’s All a Matter of Time
From The TIMI Study Group, Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Correspondence to: Eugene Braunwald, MD, TIMI Study Group, 350 Longwood Ave, Boston. MA 02115. E-mail ebraunwald{at}partners.org
Key Words: Editorials • myocardial infarction • reperfusion • angioplasty • fibrinolysis
 |
Introduction |
|---|
 Top Introduction Reassessment of the Golden...Benefits of Reperfusion After...A Rational Approach to...Areas for Future InvestigationReferences |
|---|
The primary goal of treatment of acute coronary occlusion is the achievement of early, complete, and sustained epicardial and myocardial reperfusion. Fibrinolytic therapy was first attempted in 1958,1 and, until recently, constituted the dominant approach for reperfusion. Primary coronary intervention (PCI) is now being used as an alternative to fibrinolysis with increasing frequency. This approach is supported by a recent comprehensive meta-analysis of 23 trials that demonstrated reductions in death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and stroke of 2, 4, and 1 per 100 patients treated through 30 days, respectively.2 Attempts to improve the efficacy of the standard pharmacological reperfusion regimen consisting of aspirin, unfractionated heparin, and front-loaded tissue plasminogen activator using more fibrin specific fibrinolytic agents, bolus preparations, more potent antithrombotic drugs, and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have not reduced mortality.3 In contrast, a meta-analysis of clinical trials that compared prehospital fibrinolysis to hospital administration demonstrated a 17% relative reduction in mortality when time to treatment was reduced by an average of 1 hour.4
See p 2851
Thus, it became logical to compare these 2 improvements in reperfusion therapy in the Comparison of Angioplasty and Prehospital Thrombolysis In acute Myocardial infarction (CAPTIM) trial,5 in which the median time from symptom onset to therapy for patients receiving prehospital fibrinolysis was 130 minutes, and was 60 minutes longer in the primary PCI group. There was no difference at 30 days in the primary composite of death, non-fatal reinfarction, and non-fatal stroke (8.2% for fibrinolysis versus 6.2% for PCI, P=0.29) or in mortality alone (3.8% versus 4.8%, P=0.61). Furthermore, as described in a provocative analysis by Steg et al6 in the current issue of Circulation, there was a strong trend toward lower mortality (2.2% versus 5.7%, P=0.058) and a reduction of cardiogenic shock (1.3% versus 5.3%, P=0.032), but no difference in the primary triple endpoint (7.4% versus 6.6%, P=0.86) in patients treated with prehospital fibrinolysis within 2 hours of symptom onset. Thus, the above-described superiority of PCI over fibrinolysis appears not always to be present in a small but important subgroup of patients, ie, those who can receive treatment in the first 2 hours after symptom onset.
|
Reassessment of the Golden Hours |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionReassessment of the Golden...Benefits of Reperfusion After...A Rational Approach to...Areas for Future InvestigationReferences |
|---|
Restoration of epicardial flow, regardless of the method used, can abort infarction within the first 30 minutes after coronary occlusion (Figure), and the benefit of fibrinolytic therapy compared with placebo is considerably higher in patients treated within 2 hours after symptom onset than in those treated later.7 By reducing the time to treatment by 30 to 60 minutes, prehospital fibrinolysis results in earlier ST-segment resolution8 and increases the frequency of aborted infarction. Although successful reperfusion between 30 minutes and 2 hours can result in considerable myocardial salvage, only a minority of patients comes into contact with medical personnel within this time interval. Indeed, a large US registry showed that the combination of delays in patient presentation and those inherent in an interventional strategy result in only 8% of patients receiving primary PCI within 2 hours of symptom onset.9
|
|
Benefits of Reperfusion After 2 to 3 Hours |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionReassessment of the Golden...Benefits of Reperfusion After...A Rational Approach to...Areas for Future InvestigationReferences |
|---|
With successful reperfusion more than 2 to 3 hours after symptom onset, myocardial salvage is reduced10 (particularly with fibrinolytic therapy11), preservation of the myocardium is dependent on preexisting collateral flow,10 and recovery of left ventricular function is modest.12 Primary PCI with adjunctive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor may improve myocardial salvage compared with pharmacological reperfusion.11,12 In 1989, we expanded the then standard paradigm (early reperfusion
smaller infarct improved survival) to include other potential benefits of an open infarct-related artery, which include perfusion of hibernating myocardium, improved healing, the prevention of infarct expansion, and of ventricular remodeling.13,14 Because PCI is very effective (>90%) at restoring epicardial flow and improving microvascular flow even hours after the onset of coronary occlusion, it is especially well suited to reap these purported benefits of arterial opening in patients who present relatively late. Although progressively longer delays in time to presentation are associated with higher rates of complications after fibrinolysis, the same pattern appears less evident for primary PCI.15 |
A Rational Approach to Reperfusion Therapy |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionReassessment of the Golden...Benefits of Reperfusion After...A Rational Approach to...Areas for Future InvestigationReferences |
|---|
Given the overall superiority of primary PCI over hospital-administered fibrinolysis,2 the former has emerged as the treatment of choice when the facilities and a high-volume, experienced operator and team are readily available and the coronary anatomy is suitable. The definition of "readily available" is somewhat uncertain, although recent data suggest that outcomes with primary PCI remain superior to fibrinolysis if the added delay is less than 60 to 90 minutes.16 Longer delays in door-to-balloon time are associated with higher mortality,17 even after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics.9
When PCI is not available or when the delay between presentation to a hospital and primary PCI is anticipated to be in excess of 90 minutes (which is more likely to occur in low-volume centers, in patients requiring transfer to a second facility or presenting between 6 PM and 8 AM), fibrinolytic therapy should be considered in patients who can be treated within 2 to 3 hours of symptom onset and who are not at high risk for intracranial hemorrhage. In such patients with fresh thrombus, fibrinolytic therapy is especially effective in opening an occluded infarct artery. Because the time to onset of treatment can be shortened by prehospital treatment, administration of fibrinolytic therapy in the ambulance, if available, is most appropriate in patients who present early. This may be followed by PCI to achieve maximal sustained patency of the infarct artery. Indeed, in the fibrinolytic arm of the CAPTIM trial, an early "rescue" intervention was used in 26% of patients and PCI was carried out in an additional 46% within the first month.5 The Southwest German International Study in Acute Myocardial Infarction (SIAM) III trial18 suggests that even better outcomes might have been obtained had all patients receiving early fibrinolytic therapy undergone early angiography and revascularization, as transfer for stenting within 6 hours after fibrinolytic therapy was associated with a halving (25.6% versus 50.6%, P=0.001) of the composite outcome of death, reinfarction, ischemic events, and target lesion revascularization compared with a strategy of delayed elective coronary angiography at 2 weeks.
Because aging thrombi become more resistant to lysis, the efficacy of fibrinolytic therapy in establishing reperfusion and salvaging ischemic myocardium falls off with time from symptom onset, whereas the efficacy of PCI in achieving complete reperfusion and salvaging ischemic myocardium is far less time-dependent.11,19 In addition, patients who present later tend to be older, have more comorbidities, and are at increased risk for intracranial bleeding. Patients over the age of 75 years experience a 3-fold increase in death, reinfarction, or stroke after fibrinolysis compared with primary PCI.20 Thus, patients who cannot receive fibrinolytic therapy within 2 to 3 hours of symptom onset, but who can receive PCI within the next 90 minutes, should be offered this therapy, even if this entails transfer to another facility. Patients who present more than 2 to 3 hours after symptom onset with continued ischemic pain and/or ST-segment elevation, but who cannot be treated with PCI within the next 2 hours, should (if they have no contraindications) receive fibrinolytic therapy, as some myocardial salvage may still be achieved. These patients should be considered for immediate adjunctive PCI after fibrinolysis, particularly if they experience continued ischemic discomfort or ST elevation, recurrent ischemia, or have signs of left ventricular dysfunction, or later if they are not at low risk after noninvasive assessment.
Patients presenting more than approximately 6 hours after symptom onset, especially patients whose chest pain and ST elevation have subsided, will demonstrate only modest benefit from fibrinolysis but may be considered for coronary angiography as soon as feasible, as this approach permits risk stratification, allows for PCI when the anatomy is suitable, and identifies patients who would benefit from coronary artery bypass surgery. The window may be longer (up to 12 hours) in patients with preexisting coronary collaterals, persistent pain, and ST-segment elevation. The benefit of even later (>48 hours) opening of an occluded infarct artery is under investigation in the ongoing Occluded Artery Trial (OAT).21
|
Areas for Future Investigation |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionReassessment of the Golden...Benefits of Reperfusion After...A Rational Approach to...Areas for Future InvestigationReferences |
|---|
Despite the wealth of data generated in 2 decades of randomized clinical trials on hundreds of thousands of patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction, a number of important questions remain. In patients who present within 2 to 3 hours, does a routine pharmacoinvasive approach22 that includes early fibrinolytic therapy and/or a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor followed by immediate PCI result in additional salvage that offsets the expected increase in bleeding? Are noninvasive markers of early reperfusion after pharmacological therapy helpful in identifying patients who do not require follow-up mechanical reperfusion? Can pharmacological treatment extend the window of eligibility for PCI? Perhaps most important, how can we most effectively increase the number of patients who present immediately after the onset of symptoms, and how can we provide prehospital fibrinolytic therapy in the United States to maximize the benefit of treatment during the golden hours?
|
Footnotes |
|---|
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopIntroductionReassessment of the Golden...Benefits of Reperfusion After...A Rational Approach to...Areas for Future InvestigationReferences |
|---|
1. Fletcher AP, Alkjaersig N, Smyrniotis FE, et al. Treatment of patients suffering from early, myocardial infarction with massive and prolonged streptokinase therapy. Trans Assoc Am Physicians. 1958; 71: 287–296.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet. 2003; 361: 13–20.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Boersma E, Mercado N, Poldermans D, et al. Acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2003; 361: 847–858.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Morrison LJ, Verbeek PR, McDonald AC, et al. Mortality and prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2000; 283: 2686–2692.
5. Bonnefoy E, Lapostolle F, Leizorovicz A, et al. Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study. Lancet. 2002; 360: 825–829.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Steg PG, Bonnefoy E, Chabaud S, et al. Impact of time to treatment on mortality after prehospital fibrinolysis or primary angioplasty: data from the CAPTIM randomized clinical trial. Circulation. 2003; 108: 2851–2856.
7. Boersma E, Maas AC, Deckers JW, et al. Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet. 1996; 348: 771–775.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Sayah A, et al. Evaluation of the time saved by prehospital initiation of reteplase for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: results of the Early Retavase-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (ER-TIMI) 19 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40: 71–77.
9. Cannon CP, Gibson CM, Lambrew CT, et al. Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time with mortality in patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2000; 283: 2941–2947.
10. Milavetz JJ, Giebel DW, Christian TF, et al. Time to therapy and salvage in myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 31: 1246–1251.
11. Schomig A, Ndrepepa G, Mehilli J, et al. Therapy-dependent influence of time-to-treatment interval on myocardial salvage in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with coronary artery stenting or thrombolysis. Circulation. 2003; 108: 1084–1088.
12. Brodie BR, Stuckey TD, Wall TC, et al. Importance of time to reperfusion for 30-day and late survival and recovery of left ventricular function after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 32: 1312–1319.
13. Braunwald E. Myocardial reperfusion, limitation of infarct size, reduction of left ventricular dysfunction, and improved survival: should the paradigm be expanded? Circulation. 1989; 79: 441–444.
14. Kim CB, Braunwald E. Potential benefits of late reperfusion of infarcted myocardium: the open artery hypothesis. Circulation. 1993; 88: 2426–2436.
15. Zijlstra F, Patel A, Jones M, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with early (<2 h), intermediate (2–4 h) and late (>4 h) presentation treated by primary coronary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2002; 23: 550–557.
16. Nallamothu BK, Bates ER. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: is timing (almost) everything? Am J Cardiol. 2003; 42: 824–826.
17. Berger PB, Ellis SG, Holmes DR, Jr, et al. Relationship between delay in performing direct coronary angioplasty and early clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the global use of strategies to open occluded arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO-IIb) trial. Circulation. 1999; 100: 14–20.
18. Scheller B, Hennen B, Hammer B, et al. Beneficial effects of immediate stenting after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42: 634–641.
19. Juliard JM, Feldman LJ, Golmard JL, et al. Relation of mortality of primary angioplasty during acute myocardial infarction to door-to-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) time. Am J Cardiol. 2003; 91: 1401–1405.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
20. de Boer MJ, Ottervanger JP, van ’t Hof AW, et al. Reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomized comparison of primary angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39: 1723–1728.
21. Sadanandan S, Buller C, Menon V, et al. The late open artery hypothesis: a decade later. Am Heart J. 2001; 142: 411–421.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
22. Dauerman HL, Sobel BE. Synergistic treatment of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction with pharmacoinvasive recanalization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42: 646–651.
Related Article:
Circulation 2003 108: 2851-2856.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  B Nallamothu, K A A Fox, B M Kennelly, F Van de Werf, J M Gore, P G Steg, C B Granger, O H Dabbous, E Kline-Rogers, K A Eagle, et al. Relationship of treatment delays and mortality in patients undergoing fibrinolysis and primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Heart, December 1, 2007; 93(12): 1552 - 1555. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Kusama, K. Hibi, M. Kosuge, N. Nozawa, H. Ozaki, H. Yano, S. Sumita, K. Tsukahara, J. Okuda, T. Ebina, et al. Impact of Plaque Rupture on Infarct Size in ST-Segment Elevation Anterior Acute Myocardial Infarction J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 25, 2007; 50(13): 1230 - 1237. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. K. Nallamothu, H. M. Krumholz, D. T. Ko, K. A. LaBresh, S. Rathore, M. T. Roe, and L. Schwamm Development of Systems of Care for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients: Gaps, Barriers, and Implications Circulation, July 10, 2007; 116(2): e68 - e72. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. D. Mayer and A. Rosenfeld Symptom Interpretation in Women With Diabetes and Myocardial Infarction: A Qualitative Study The Diabetes Educator, November 1, 2006; 32(6): 918 - 924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. J. van den Bos, T. Baks, A. D. Moelker, W. Kerver, R.-J. van Geuns, W. J. van der Giessen, D. J. Duncker, and P. A. Wielopolski Magnetic resonance imaging of haemorrhage within reperfused myocardial infarcts: possible interference with iron oxide-labelled cell tracking? Eur. Heart J., July 1, 2006; 27(13): 1620 - 1626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 5: Acute Coronary Syndromes Circulation, November 29, 2005; 112(22_suppl): III-55 - III-72. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. G. Rosenfeld, A. Lindauer, and B. G. Darney Understanding Treatment-Seeking Delay in Women with Acute Myocardial Infarction: Descriptions of Decision-Making Patterns Am. J. Crit. Care., July 1, 2005; 14(4): 285 - 293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. J. Gersh, G. W. Stone, H. D. White, and D. R. Holmes Jr Pharmacological Facilitation of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction: Is the Slope of the Curve the Shape of the Future? JAMA, February 23, 2005; 293(8): 979 - 986. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. C. Wollert and H. Drexler Clinical Applications of Stem Cells for the Heart Circ. Res., February 4, 2005; 96(2): 151 - 163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Gyongyosi, H. Domanovits, W. Benzer, M. Haugk, B. Heinisch, G. Sodeck, R. Hodl, G. Gaul, G. Bonner, J. Wojta, et al. Use of abciximab prior to primary angioplasty in STEMI results in early recanalization of the infarct-related artery and improved myocardial tissue reperfusion - results of the Austrian multi-centre randomized ReoPro-BRIDGING Study Eur. Heart J., December 1, 2004; 25(23): 2125 - 2133. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Manfredini, B. Boari, P. G. Steg, E. Bonnefoy, P. Touboul, S. Chabaud, A. Leizorovicz, F. Lapostolle, P.-Y. Dubien, and P. Cristofini Impact of Time to Treatment on Mortality After Prehospital Fibrinolysis or Primary Angioplasty * Response Circulation, May 11, 2004; 109(18): e219 - e219. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Time to Treatment Affects the Relative Benefits of Reperfusion Strategies Journal Watch Cardiology, February 20, 2004; 2004(220): 2 - 2. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Prehospital Thrombolysis vs. Primary Angioplasty for Acute MI: Time to Treatment Matters Journal Watch (General), January 20, 2004; 2004(120): 6 - 6. [Full Text]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||