Key result
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a lower risk of new myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or death compared to conservative treatment (HR 0.72; P=0.001).
Why the study?
Does primary percutaneous coronary intervention reduce the composite of new myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or death compared to conservative treatment in unselected STEMI patients?
Observational (n=875)
Does primary percutaneous coronary intervention reduce the composite of new myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or death compared to conservative treatment in unselected STEMI patients?
Hazard Ratio: 0.72
p-value: p=0.001
Primary PCI confers a sustained 8-year prognostic benefit over conservative management in unselected STEMI patients, including those of advanced age.
May support primary PCI in unselected STEMI patients; extends observational data to long-term outcomes but remains hypothesis-generating.
AIMS: Long-term prognosis of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) remains relatively poorly investigated in unselected patients. This study analyzed 8-year follow-up of STEMI patients enrolled in the Florence Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry, a population-based, observational study performed in Italy in 2000-2001. METHODS: The prognostic effect of pPCI adjusted for clinical and demographic characteristics on a composite end-point of new myocardial infraction, urgent revascularization or death, and on all-cause mortality separately, was assessed in multivariable Cox analysis, calculating hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. This analysis is concerned with 875 STEMI patients (mean age 70.6 ± 12.9 years), treated with pPCI (459) or conservatively (416). RESULTS: After 8 years, 59% of patients had experienced the composite end-point and 49% had died. The multivariable analysis showed a significantly better prognosis in patients receiving pPCI (hazard ratio 0.72, P = 0.001), evident also in the 645 patients who were event-free after the first year of follow-up (hazard ratio 0.72, P = 0.010). Other independent prognostic factors were advanced age, Killip class greater than 1, some cardiovascular or noncardiovascular comorbidities, in-hospital cardiogenic shock, ejection fraction less than 30%, and treatment with aspirin and statin during hospitalization. The beneficial effect of pPCI observed both in cases younger (adjusted hazard ratio 0.65, P = 0.013) and older than 75 years (adjusted hazard ratio 0.65, P = 0.001) was also confirmed considering as outcome all-cause mortality only. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected STEMI patients, survival advantage from pPCI extends for a long term (8 years). This survival advantage is maintained at advanced ages, thus enforcing the importance of improving delivery of appropriate care to older STEMI patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barchielli et al. (2012) conducted an observational in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=875). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) vs. Conservative treatment was evaluated on Composite of new myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization or death (HR 0.72, p=0.001). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with a lower risk of new myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or death compared to conservative treatment (HR 0.72; P=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: