Key result
Tissue-type plasminogen activator did not significantly increase measurable improvement of the culprit lesion (25% vs 19%, p=0.25), but increased substantial improvement (15% vs 5%, p<0.003).
Why the study?
Does tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) improve the culprit coronary lesion in patients presenting with unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction?
RCT (n=306)
Does tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) improve the culprit coronary lesion in patients presenting with unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 25% vs 19%
p-value: p=0.25
In patients with unstable angina or non-Q wave MI, t-PA did not significantly increase measurable angiographic improvement overall, but did increase substantial improvement, particularly in lesions with apparent thrombus.
t-PA fails to improve measurable culprit lesion outcomes in unstable angina; challenges routine use and leaves open targeted benefit in thrombotic lesions.
BACKGROUND: The early effects of tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) on the "culprit" coronary lesion in patients presenting with unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction were determined by quantitative arteriography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 391 such patients, 306 satisfied clinical and arteriographic requirements for eligibility and received a 90-minute front-loaded infusion of t-PA (0.8 mg/kg i.v.; maximum, 80 mg) or placebo plus conventional antianginal therapy. All patients received full heparinization and a follow-up arteriogram 18-48 hours after treatment. A non-Q wave myocardial infarction (MI) was diagnosed in 97 patients (32%) after entry. In the entire patient population, among t-PA- and placebo-treated patients, respectively, 25% versus 19% (p = 0.25) of all culprit lesions achieved the primary study end point, measurable improvement (by > or = 10% reduction of stenosis or two Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] flow grades) at follow-up. Substantial improvement (by > or = 20% reduction of stenosis or two TIMI grades) was seen with t-PA in 15% of all culprit lesions versus 5% with placebo (p < 0.003). Arteriographically apparent thrombus was present at baseline in the culprit lesion of 107 patients (35%). Substantial improvement was more frequent with t-PA among lesions containing apparent thrombus (in 36% with t-PA versus 15% with placebo; p < 0.01), as it was among patients evolving a non-Q wave MI (33% versus 8%; p < 0.005). By multivariate analysis, the significant, independent predictors of substantial improvement include apparent thrombus (p = 0.0001), non-Q wave MI (p = 0.003), and t-PA use (p = 0.01). Both non-Q wave MI status and thrombus had been specified a priori as important variables. CONCLUSIONS: Arteriographically apparent intraluminal thrombus and improvement of the culprit lesion with either of these regimens were only moderately frequent in patients with unstable angina or non-Q wave MI. Substantial improvement of culprit lesions was more frequent with t-PA than with placebo overall and in two prospectively defined subgroups. The clinical relevance of these observations is being tested in the larger, ongoing clinical TIMI IIIB study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 1993 study conducted an RCT in Unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction (n=306). Tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) vs. Placebo was evaluated on Measurable improvement (by ≥10% reduction of stenosis or two TIMI flow grades) at follow-up (p=0.25). Tissue-type plasminogen activator did not significantly increase measurable improvement of the culprit lesion (25% vs 19%, p=0.25), but increased substantial improvement (15% vs 5%, p<0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: