Why the study?
The survival benefit of invasive treatments such as PPCI in STEMI patients with a history of CABG had yet to be fully evaluated.
Does primary percutaneous coronary intervention improve survival in STEMI patients with a history of CABG compared to thrombolytic therapy or no reperfusion?
Does primary percutaneous coronary intervention improve survival in STEMI patients with a history of CABG compared to thrombolytic therapy or no reperfusion?
In a historical cohort of STEMI patients with prior CABG, primary PCI did not demonstrate a significant survival advantage over thrombolytic therapy or no reperfusion.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No survival difference among strategies in prior-CABG STEMI; leaves open optimal reperfusion choice pending randomized trials.
Background: Although invasive treatments such as primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) are the treatment of choice in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, the survival benefit of this treatment in patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) has yet to be fully evaluated. Methods: In this historical cohort study, 251 STEMI patients with a history of CABG between 2007 and 2017 were stratified into 3 groups of no reperfusion, thrombolytic, and PPCI based on their treatment strategy. Baseline clinical characteristics, details of the STEMI event, and the course of hospitalization were evaluated for all patients and they were followed up until May 2018 to assess all-cause mortality. Results: The mean age of the study population was 64.01±9.45 years, and 81.7% of them were male. The median follow-up time was 1304 (IQR25%-75%: 571–2269) days, the short-term (1 month) mortality rate was 5.97%, and the long-term mortality rate was 15.1%. There was no significant difference between the 3 different strategies in terms of survival. In the fully adjusted multivariate analysis, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HR: 15.06, 95% CI: 2.25–101.14, P=0.005) was significantly associated with short-term mortality, while diabetes (HR: 5.95, 95% CI: 2.03–17.44, P=0.001), opium abuse (HR: 4.85, 95% CI: 1.45–16.23, P=0.010), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HR: 11.73, 95% CI: 3.44–40.28, P=0.001) were significantly associated with long-term mortality. Conclusion: Our results failed to show the superiority of invasive treatment in terms of survival. Further studies regarding the advantages and disadvantages of invasive treatment in post-CABG patients are required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shavazi et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: