Why the study?
What are the temporal trends and predictors of major in-hospital adverse events following primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction?
What are the temporal trends and predictors of major in-hospital adverse events following primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction?
Between 1996 and 2000 in Brazil, the increasing use of coronary stenting during primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction was associated with higher procedural success and lower in-hospital mortality compared to balloon angioplasty.
May favor stenting over balloon PTCA in primary AMI angioplasty; extends observational data but leaves open randomized confirmation.
OBJECTIVE: To verify the results after the performance of primary coronary angioplasty in Brazil in the last 4 years. METHODS: During the first 24 hours of acute myocardial infarction onset, 9,434 (12.2%) patients underwent primary PTCA. We analyzed the success and occurrence of major in-hospital events, comparing them over the 4-year period. RESULTS: Primary PTCA use increased compared with that of all percutaneous interventions (1996=10.6% vs. 2000=13.1%; p<0.001). Coronary stent implantation increased (1996=20% vs. 2000=71.9%; p<0.001). Success was greater (1998=89.5% vs. 1999=92.5%; p<0.001). Reinfarction decreased (1998=3.9% vs. 99=2.4% vs. 2000=1.5%; p<0.001) as did emergency bypass surgery (1996=0.5% vs. 2000=0.2%; p=0.01). In-hospital deaths remained unchanged (1996=5.7% vs. 2000=5.1%, p=0.53). Balloon PTCA was one of the independent predictors of a higher rate of unsuccessful procedures (odds ratio 12.01 [CI=95%] 1.58-22.94), and stent implantation of lower mortality rates (odds ratio 4.62 [CI=95%] 3.19-6.08). CONCLUSION: The success rate has become progressively higher with a significant reduction in reinfarction and urgent bypass surgery, but in-hospital death remains nearly unchanged. Coronary stenting was a predictor of a lower death rate, and balloon PTCA was associated with greater procedural failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mattos et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: