PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 1, 1990Clinical Cardiology2 citationsOpen Access

Coronary angioplasty after intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction: Influence of restenosis on clinical outcome and left ventricular function

View Full Paper
FLF LeischKKKlaus KerschnerWHWolfgang Harringer

Structured PICO

Does restenosis after successful coronary angioplasty following intravenous streptokinase for acute MI affect clinical outcome and left ventricular function?

P
Population
76 patients with acute evolving myocardial infarction (maximal duration of pain 4 h) treated with thrombolysis (1.5 x 10^6 units of streptokinase intravenously over 60 min) with recanalized single-vessel disease and subsequent successful coronary angioplasty.
I
Intervention
Restenosis (identified at repeat angiography)
C
Comparator
No restenosis
O
Outcome
Clinical outcome (complaints) and left ventricular function (global ejection fraction and regional wall motion)surrogate

Restenosis after successful angioplasty following thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction adversely affects the recovery of left ventricular function and increases clinical symptoms.

Abstract

The importance of recurrence of stenosis on clinical outcome and left ventricular function was studied in a consecutive series of patients with acute evolving myocardial infarction (maximal duration of pain 4 h) and thrombolysis (1.5 x 10(6) units of streptokinase intravenously over 60 min) with recanalized single-vessel disease and subsequent successful coronary angioplasty. Coronary angioplasty was performed in 76 patients between 24 hours and 8 days (mean interval 3.3 days) after thrombolysis and was successful in 86% (65/76). The in-hospital reinfarction rate was 5.2% (2 acute and 2 in-hospital reinfarctions). Repeat angiography after a mean interval of 5.9 months revealed a 39% (24/62) restenosis rate (21 restenoses, 3 reocclusions). Restenoses were associated with significantly more clinical complaints (21% vs. 62%; p less than 0.001). Left ventricular function analysis showed significant improvement in the mean global ejection fraction (6.6 +/- 6.0%; p less than 0.001) and mean regional wall motion of the infarct zone (6.2 +/- 8.2%; p less than 0.01) only in patients without restenosis. Recovery of left ventricular function was more evident in inferior than in anterior wall infarctions. In contrast, patients with restenosis had no change in left ventricular function. Thus, the present study demonstrates the adverse influence of restenosis on recovery of left ventricular function and clinical outcome.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Leisch et al. (1990) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a110ba06da82ae745f33ed4https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.4960130405
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper