Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background Smoker’s paradox usually refers to the common observation of a favourable outcome of smoker patients in acute myocardial infarction. The interpretation of this phenomenon is still controversial and not fully explained. We aimed at assessing whether smoking could be associated with mortality in a large cohort of prospectively enrolled patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) referred to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods From April 2006 to December 2018 a population of 2456 STEMI patients treated with primary PCI were prospectively enrolled in the MATRIX registry. Ischemic time, clinical, demographics, angiographic data and 1–year follow–up were collected. Results Among 2546 patients admitted with STEMI 1007 (41%) were current smokers. Smokers were 10 years younger and had lower crude in–hospital and 1–year mortality (1.5% vs 6%, p0.0001 and 5% vs 11%, p0.0001), shorter ischemic time (203 147–299 vs 220 154–334 minutes, p=0.002) and shorter decision time (60 30–135 vs 70 36–170 minutes, p=0.0063). After propensity–matching, age, cardiogenic shock and low TIMI score were associated with in–hospital mortality, while smoking habit was still associated with reduced mortality. Smoking was also associated with reduced death rate at 1–year follow–up (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 – 0.78; p0.001). Conclusions Our data show a protective link between smoking status and mortality in patients with STEMI, the so called “smoker’s paradox”. This could be explained not only by the shorter ischemic time and younger age of the smoking population but also by a specific pathogenetic effect of smoking underlying the onset of STEMI and response to therapies.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Umberto Paradossi
Alberto De Caterina
Mario Raccis
European Heart Journal Supplements
Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale Della Romagna
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Paradossi et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68e716f6b6db64358768f917 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartjsupp/suae036.132
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: