Why the study?
There is no complete clarity regarding the management strategy for patients with ST-segment elevation MI admitted delayed (>12 hours from symptom onset).
Does delayed revascularization improve survival in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction admitted more than 12 hours from symptom onset?
Does delayed revascularization improve survival in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction admitted more than 12 hours from symptom onset?
Delayed revascularization (>12 hours from symptom onset) in STEMI patients may improve survival and reduce cardiovascular events compared to conservative management.
May support delayed revascularization in late STEMI; leaves open need for randomized confirmation.
The success of myocardial infarction (MI) treatment largely depends on the timely delivery of quality health care, primarily on the blood flow restoration through the infarct-related artery. This review presents the results of several meta-analyzes and studies, including our own data, which indicate that delayed revascularization (>12 h from the onset) performed in patients with ST-segment elevation MI leads to an increase in the short- and long-term survival, a decrease in the incidence of cardiovascular events and severity of myocardial remodeling. For example, the analysis from the V. P. Polyakov Samara Regional Clinical Cardiological Dispensary showed the higher mortality rate in patients with ST-segment elevation MI admitted >12 hours from the onset, who received conservative treatment (7,9%) than in those with the invasive management (0,5%) (hazard ratio, 14,8; 95% confidence interval, 1,7- 124,7; P<0,05). However, at present, there is no complete clarity regarding the strategy of managing such patients. According to the current European Society of Cardiology guidelines on myocardial revascularization (2018), the class of recommendations reaches IIA, which means the conflicting data and/ or disagreement about usefulness/efficacy of a particular treatment method, but weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vorontsova et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: