Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable late ST-elevation myocardial infarction with symptoms onset between 12
Shumail Fatima1, Matthew E Harinstein2, Mubashir Hussain3
1Harrington Heart and Vascular Institute, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve Medical University, United States.
Insights
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcomes for stable late ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients compared to medical therapy. Urgent versus non-urgent PCI timing showed no significant clinical outcome differences in this review.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Interventional Cardiology
- Acute Coronary Syndromes
Background:
- Clinical equipoise exists regarding invasive versus conservative management for stable late ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting 12-72 hours post-symptom onset.
- Optimal timing for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this patient group remains unclear.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and compare outcomes of PCI versus medical therapy in stable late STEMI.
- To determine the optimal timing of PCI by comparing urgent versus non-urgent approaches in this population.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases (up to March 2024).
- Included studies compared PCI vs. medical therapy or urgent vs. non-urgent PCI in stable late STEMI patients (12-72h onset).
- Quality and risk of bias assessed using GRADE and ROBINS-I criteria.
Main Results:
- PCI significantly improved short- and long-term outcomes, reducing all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and infarct size (P < 0.001).
- PCI showed non-significant improvements in cardiac death, heart failure, revascularization, and ejection fraction.
- Urgent vs. non-urgent PCI showed no significant differences in clinical outcomes (P > 0.05).
- Included studies exhibited heterogeneity; evidence quality was moderate with moderate to serious risk of bias.
Conclusions:
- Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) offers superior outcomes over medical therapy for stable late STEMI patients presenting within 12-72 hours.
- Further research is needed to establish the optimal timing for PCI in this patient cohort.
Background:
There exists clinical equipoise regarding whether and when an invasive approach should be preferred over conservative treatment in the management of stable late ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presenting within 12 to 72 h of symptom onset.
Objective:
To perform a systematic review to identify the most effective treatment strategy between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and medical therapy in stable late STEMI presenters by comparing their respective outcomes as well as determine the optimal timing of PCI by evaluating the outcomes of urgent versus non-urgent PCI approach in this patient population.
Methods:
PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were queried from inception until March 2024 for studies comparing the outcomes of PCI versus medical therapy, as well as urgent versus non-urgent PCI, in stable late STEMI patients presenting with symptom onset within 12-72 h. Quality of the studies and risk of bias were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROBINS-I 2016) tool, respectively.
Results:
A total of 8 studies were included in this systematic review that met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 5 studies (1 randomized controlled trial (RCT), 1 post-hoc analysis, and 3 observational studies) with an aggregate of 3820 participants compared PCI and medical therapy in stable late STEMI presenters. They found that PCI was associated with statistically significant better short- and long-term outcomes by lowering all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and infarct size, and by improving myocardial salvage index (P < 0.001). Similarly, a non-statistically significant improvement was seen in the events of cardiac death, heart failure, and revascularization as well as ejection fraction percentage with PCI (P > 0.05). The other 3 studies, involving 1270 participants, were observational and compared urgent versus non-urgent PCI and did not find any statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between the two approaches (P > 0.05). The included studies were significantly heterogeneous in methodologies, follow-up intervals, and reporting of outcomes. Most of the studies provided moderate quality of evidence and had moderate to serious risk of bias.
Conclusions And Relevance:
Revascularization through PCI is associated with superior short- and long-term outcomes compared to medical therapy in stable late STEMI patients presenting within 12-72 h of symptom onset. However, the optimal timing of PCI needs further investigation.
More Related Videos
18:11A Research Method For Detecting Transient Myocardial Ischemia In Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome Using Continuous ST-segment Analysis
Published on: December 28, 2012
05:26Postconditioning with Lactate-enriched Blood for Cardioprotection in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Published on: May 28, 2019
Related Concept Videos
01:20Blood Studies for Cardiovascular System I: Cardiac Biomarkers
The essential diagnostic tools for detecting myocardial necrosis and monitoring individuals suspected of having acute coronary syndrome (ACS) include:
Troponins
Troponins, particularly cardiac troponins I and T, are the most precise and sensitive markers of myocardial injury. They are detectable within 4-6 hours of myocardial injury and remain...
01:17Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System I:Echocardiography
Indications: Echocardiography is utilized to diagnose heart failure, valve disorders, and myocardial infarction. It also assesses cardiac structures' size, shape, and motion,...