(Circulation. 2003;108:1292.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.
Focused Perspective |
From the Departments of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Ga (W.S.W.), and University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City (S.S.).
Correspondence to William S. Weintraub, MD, Emory University, 1256 Briarcliff Rd, Atlanta, GA 30306. E-mail wweintr@emory.edu
Key Words: Editorials myocardial infarction angioplasty reperfusion
An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract. |
Reperfusion after acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (AMI) remains the cornerstone of the initial therapy. Although reperfusion can be accomplished with either primary angioplasty or fibrinolytic therapy, clinical trial data reveal improved outcome with primary angioplasty. Furthermore, primary angioplasty with coronary stenting results in less repeat revascularization than balloon angioplasty. Despite the advantages of mechanical revascularization, primarily with stenting, the majority of patients presenting with AMI will receive pharmacological reperfusion.
See p 1324
How then should patients with AMI who are initially treated medically subsequently be managed? Medical therapy with platelet inhibition, ß-blockade, ACE inhibition, and lipid lowering can all be accomplished according to guidelines. However, what is the role of revascularization after the most acute period? In patients with recurrent ischemia or severe multivessel disease with left ventricular dysfunction, the role of revascularization is relatively clear. However, is there a place for routine percutaneous revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) in stable, post-AMI patients with 1-vessel disease?
To address this question, Zeymer et al1 randomized 300 patients with 1-vessel disease 1 to 6 weeks after AMI to angioplasty or medical therapy between 1994 and 1997. Fibrinolytic therapy was used in 180 patients (60%). All patients had significant stenosis or total occlusion (29%) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) and no or mild angina. All but 11 (7.4%) patients in the invasive arm underwent angioplasty, but only 17% received stents. One-year mortality was 0.7% with angioplasty versus 3.3% with medical therapy (P=0.21), and freedom from death, MI, revascularization, or readmission
Related Article:
Circulation 2003 108: 1324-1328.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
G. Tacoy, G. E. Yazici, M. Erden, and T. Timurkaynak The comparison of early and late outcome of direct and conventional stenting of patients with st elevation myocardial infarction Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease, June 1, 2009; 3(3): 181 - 186. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
G. E. Yazici, M. Erden, G. A. Tacoy, B. B. Yavuz, S. Turkoglu, and T. Timurkaynak The Optimal Time of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Patients After ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Angiology, February 1, 2009; 60(1): 67 - 73. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. R. Anderson, N. Nagajothi, J.-L. E. Velazquez-Cecena, S. Khosla, B. Wong, O. Erdogan, L. De Luca, F. Tomai, D. Chua, A. Lo, et al. Persistent Coronary Occlusion after Myocardial Infarction N. Engl. J. Med., April 19, 2007; 356(16): 1681 - 1684. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. G. Steg, C. Thuaire, D. Himbert, D. Carrie, S. Champagne, D. Coisne, K. Khalife, P. Cazaux, D. Logeart, M. Slama, et al. DECOPI (DEsobstruction COronaire en Post-Infarctus): a randomized multi-centre trial of occluded artery angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction Eur. Heart J., December 2, 2004; 25(24): 2187 - 2194. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2003 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |