Why the study?
What are the clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of STEMI patients with varying degrees of heart failure following fibrinolysis?
What are the clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of STEMI patients with varying degrees of heart failure following fibrinolysis?
STEMI patients who develop heart failure after fibrinolysis have significantly higher mortality but paradoxically receive less aggressive invasive and medical therapies.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
HF after fibrinolysis marks high-risk STEMI patients with treatment gaps; leaves open whether targeted revascularization improves outcomes.
AIMS: To define the clinical characteristics, co-morbidities, treatment, and clinical outcomes of patients with varying degrees of heart failure (HF) complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and to identify patients at high risk for HF following fibrinolysis. METHODS AND RESULTS: 15,078 STEMI patients enrolled in a worldwide fibrinolytic trial (InTIME-II) were categorised into one of four hierarchical, mutually exclusive groups of HF: shock (n = 719, 5%); severe HF (n = 1082, 7%); mild HF (n = 1619, 11%); no HF (n = 11,658, 77%). In a multivariable model, anterior MI (OR 1.8, 95% CI [1.6; 1.9]), age > or = 65 (OR 1.8 [1.6; 2.0]), prior HF (OR 3.3 [2.6; 4.2]), and creatinine clearance < 60 mL/min (OR 1.8 [1.6; 2.1]) were the four most powerful correlates of HF. Although 30-day mortality was sixfold higher for patients with HF (18.9% vs. 3.1%, P < 0.0001), these patients were less likely to undergo angiography (30% vs. 40%, P < 0.0001) and revascularisation (19% vs. 25%, P , 0.0001), than patients without HF. Likewise, angiotensin-inhibitors and beta-blockers were not optimally utilised in patients with HF following MI. CONCLUSIONS: During the index admission following fibrinolysis 23% of patients had HF. Despite a higher risk profile, patients with more severe HF were treated less aggressively than patients without HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amir Kashani (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: