Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients ≥70 Years of Age - Université de Rennes Accéder directement au contenu
Article Dans Une Revue American Journal of Cardiology Année : 2020

Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients ≥70 Years of Age

Emmanuelle Filippi
  • Fonction : Auteur
Jean-Philippe Hacot
  • Fonction : Auteur
Amer Zabalawi
  • Fonction : Auteur
Gilles Rouault
  • Fonction : Auteur
Djamel Saouli
  • Fonction : Auteur
Philippe Druelles
  • Fonction : Auteur
Isabelle Coudert
  • Fonction : Auteur
Bertrand Boulanger
  • Fonction : Auteur
Martine Gilard
  • Fonction : Auteur

Résumé

The benefit-risk ratio of a pharmacoinvasive strategy (PI) in patients ≥70 years of age with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains uncertain resulting in its limited use in this population. This study compared efficacy and safety of PI with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Data from 2,841 patients (mean age 78.1 ± 5.6 years, female 36.1%) included in a prospective multicenter registry, and who underwent either PI (n = 269) or pPCI (n = 2,572), were analyzed. The primary end point was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, and definite stent thrombosis. Secondary end points included all-cause death, major bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and the development of in-hospital Killip class III or IV heart failure. Propensity-score matching and conditional logistic regression were used to adjust for confounders. Within the matched cohort, rates of MACE was not statistically different between the PI (n = 247) and pPCI (n = 958) groups, (11.3% vs 9.0%, respectively, odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.94; p = 0.31). Secondary end points were comparable between groups at the exception of a lower rate of development of Killip class III or IV heart failure after PI. The rate of intracranial hemorrhage was significantly higher in the PI group (2.3% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, the present study demonstrated no difference regarding in-hospital MACE following PI or pPCI in STEMI patients ≥70 years of age. An adequately-powered randomized trial is needed to precisely define the role of PI in this high-risk subgroup.
Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
Auffret et al-2019-Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention For.pdf (666.73 Ko) Télécharger le fichier
Origine : Fichiers produits par l'(les) auteur(s)
Loading...

Dates et versions

hal-02440634 , version 1 (11-02-2020)

Identifiants

Citer

Vincent Auffret, Clément Laurin, Guillaume Leurent, Romain Didier, Emmanuelle Filippi, et al.. Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients ≥70 Years of Age. American Journal of Cardiology, 2020, 125 (1), pp.1-10. ⟨10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.09.044⟩. ⟨hal-02440634⟩
129 Consultations
211 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

Gmail Facebook X LinkedIn More