Use of the Pharmacoinvasive Strategy in Argentina. ARGEN-IAM ST Registry Analysis

Q4 Medicine
Mauro Rossi Prat, J. Gagliardi, M. L. Estrella, Gerarda Zapata, Mauro A. Quiroga, Adrián Charask, A. Meiriño, Yanina Castillo Costa, Walter Quiroga, Heraldo D´Imperio
{"title":"Use of the Pharmacoinvasive Strategy in Argentina. ARGEN-IAM ST Registry Analysis","authors":"Mauro Rossi Prat, J. Gagliardi, M. L. Estrella, Gerarda Zapata, Mauro A. Quiroga, Adrián Charask, A. Meiriño, Yanina Castillo Costa, Walter Quiroga, Heraldo D´Imperio","doi":"10.7775/rac.v91.i3.20632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In Argentina, a country with a large area and suboptimal reperfusion times, the pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategy might be considered. Methods: ARGEN-IAM-ST is a national prospective, multicenter, and observational registry that includes STEMI patients with less than 36 hours of progression. The PI strategy usage and its associated variables were defined. Results: In this registry, 4788 patients were analyzed, of which 88.56% underwent PPCI, 8.46% received thrombolytics with positive reperfusion (TL+), and only 2.98% received PI strategy. Median and interquartile range (IQR) of total ischemia time were lower in patients receiving TL+ (165 min, IQR 100-269) and PI (191 min, IQR 100-330) than in patients undergoing PPCI (280 min, IQR 179-520), p <0.001. No differences in intra-hospital mortality were observed: 4.9% in the PI strategy group, 5.2% in the TL+ group and 7.8% in the PPCI group (p = 0.081). No differences in major bleeding events were observed. It was observed that 57% of the TL+ patients met the criteria for high cardiovascular risk, but they did not receive PI strategy, as recommended. Conclusions: Only 3 out of 100 reperfused STEMI patients received PI strategy. Its administration is not systematically associated to high cardiovascular risk. Despite the under-usage, it remains an option to be considered due to its total ischemia time lower than in the PPCI, with no increase in clinically significant bleedings.","PeriodicalId":34966,"journal":{"name":"Revista Argentina de Cardiologia","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Argentina de Cardiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7775/rac.v91.i3.20632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In Argentina, a country with a large area and suboptimal reperfusion times, the pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategy might be considered. Methods: ARGEN-IAM-ST is a national prospective, multicenter, and observational registry that includes STEMI patients with less than 36 hours of progression. The PI strategy usage and its associated variables were defined. Results: In this registry, 4788 patients were analyzed, of which 88.56% underwent PPCI, 8.46% received thrombolytics with positive reperfusion (TL+), and only 2.98% received PI strategy. Median and interquartile range (IQR) of total ischemia time were lower in patients receiving TL+ (165 min, IQR 100-269) and PI (191 min, IQR 100-330) than in patients undergoing PPCI (280 min, IQR 179-520), p <0.001. No differences in intra-hospital mortality were observed: 4.9% in the PI strategy group, 5.2% in the TL+ group and 7.8% in the PPCI group (p = 0.081). No differences in major bleeding events were observed. It was observed that 57% of the TL+ patients met the criteria for high cardiovascular risk, but they did not receive PI strategy, as recommended. Conclusions: Only 3 out of 100 reperfused STEMI patients received PI strategy. Its administration is not systematically associated to high cardiovascular risk. Despite the under-usage, it remains an option to be considered due to its total ischemia time lower than in the PPCI, with no increase in clinically significant bleedings.
阿根廷药物侵入策略的使用。注册表分析
背景:原发性经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)是急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)的首选治疗方法。阿根廷是一个面积大、再灌注时间不理想的国家,可考虑采用药物侵入(PI)策略。方法:argon - iam - st是一项全国前瞻性、多中心、观察性注册研究,纳入进展时间小于36小时的STEMI患者。定义了PI策略的使用及其相关变量。结果:在该注册表中,分析了4788例患者,其中88.56%的患者接受了PPCI, 8.46%的患者接受了再灌注阳性溶栓治疗(TL+),只有2.98%的患者接受了PI策略。TL+组总缺血时间中位数和四分位数范围(IQR) (165 min, IQR 100 ~ 269)和PI组(191 min, IQR 100 ~ 330)均低于PPCI组(280 min, IQR 179 ~ 520), p <0.001。院内死亡率无差异:PI策略组为4.9%,TL+组为5.2%,PPCI组为7.8% (p = 0.081)。在大出血事件方面没有观察到差异。观察到57%的TL+患者符合心血管高危标准,但他们没有接受推荐的PI策略。结论:100例STEMI再灌注患者中只有3例采用PI策略。它的使用与高心血管风险没有系统性联系。尽管使用不足,但它仍然是一个值得考虑的选择,因为它的总缺血时间比PPCI短,没有增加临床显著出血。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revista Argentina de Cardiologia
Revista Argentina de Cardiologia Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信