Key result
PPCI improves STEMI survival vs thrombolysis but requires further strategies to address post-procedural morbidity.
Why the study?
Despite well-documented mortality benefits of PPCI over thrombolysis for STEMI, evidence on quality of life outcomes after PPCI is limited.
What are the issues related to morbidity and quality of life post primary PCI for STEMI, and how can they be improved?
What are the issues related to morbidity and quality of life post primary PCI for STEMI, and how can they be improved?
This review highlights the need to address morbidity and quality of life outcomes, including heart failure, in STEMI patients who survive following primary PCI.
ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has an incidence of around 1 in 1000 of the UK population. Since 2008, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) has been considered the gold standard management, and the mortality benefits of this approach versus the previous standard treatment of thrombolysis are well documented. There is less evidence around the quality of life outcomes of patients who undergo PPCI for STEMI, despite the fact that even after a successful procedure, they may be left with impaired heart function (heart failure). This article sets out to explore the issues related to morbidity and quality of life post PPCI, and what, if anything, could be done to improve these outcomes for patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarah Wigley (2016) conducted a review in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) vs. Thrombolysis was evaluated on Morbidity and quality of life. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI improves survival compared to thrombolysis, but further strategies are needed to address post-procedural morbidity and quality of life.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: