Why the study?
The effect of persistent ST-elevation on in-hospital outcomes following primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI was not well established.
Does persistent ST elevation following primary percutaneous coronary intervention predict in-hospital adverse outcomes and readmission in patients with STEMI?
Does persistent ST elevation following primary percutaneous coronary intervention predict in-hospital adverse outcomes and readmission in patients with STEMI?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Persistent ST-segment elevation after primary PCI for STEMI is a strong clinical indicator of adverse in-hospital outcomes and readmission.
Background: Resolution of ST elevation (STE) is the hallmark of successful thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the effect of persistent STE on in-hospital outcomes following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is not well established. Methods: In this single-center retrospective cohort analysis, all patients admitted between January 1, 2016, and September 30, 2018, with a diagnosis of STEMI who underwent PPCI were included. Complete resolution was defined as a >70% decrease in the STE sum on the first electrocardiogram following PPCI. Partial resolution denoted a 30%-70% decrease, and persistent STE denoted a <30% decrease or any increase in the STE sum. The study population was divided into two groups: (1) resolved STE incorporating complete and partial resolution and (2) persistent STE incorporating persistent and increased STE. Using multivariate logistic regression, we compared the rates of in-hospital mortality, cardiogenic shock, intensive care unit admission, clinical heart failure, and readmission for a cardiac reason and heart failure between the study groups. Conclusion: Persistent STE following PPCI is a quick clinical indicator of in-hospital adverse outcomes and readmission. Future studies may explore interventions, such as early intensive medical therapy, that can improve outcomes in this population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shunnar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: