Early Risk Stratification, Treatment and Outcome in ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction
Sammanfattning: We evaluated, in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with thrombolytics, admission Troponin T (tnT), ST-segment resolution and admission N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) for early risk stratification as well as time delays and outcome in real life patients according to prehospital or in-hospital thrombolytic treatment. Also, baseline characteristics, treatments and outcome in patients enrolled in the ASSENT-2 trial in Sweden and in patients not enrolled were evaluated.TnT (n=881) and NT-proBNP (n=782) on admission and ST-resolution at 60 minutes (n=516) in patients from the ASSENT-2 and ASSENT-PLUS trials were analysed. Elevated levels of NT-proBNP and tnT on admission were both independently related to one-year mortality. However, when adding information on ST-resolution (</?50%) 60 minutes after initiation of thrombolytic treatment, tnT no longer contributed independently to mortality prediction. High and low risk patients were best identified by a combination of NT-proBNP and ST-resolution at 60 minutes.We investigated consecutive STEMI patients included in the RIKS-HIA registry between 2001 and 2004, if they were ambulance transported and had received prehospital (n=1690) or in-hospital (n=3685) thrombolytic treatment. Prehospital diagnosis and thrombolysis reduced the time to thrombolysis by almost one hour, were associated with better left ventricular function and fewer complications and reduced the adjusted one-year mortality by 30% compared with in-hospital thrombolysis.Prospective data from the RIKS-HIA registry on STEMI patients treated with thrombolytics were linked to data on trial participants in the ASSENT-2 trial of thrombolytic agents and used for direct comparisons. Patients treated with thrombolytics and not enrolled in a clinical trial at trial hospitals (n=2048) had higher risk characteristics, more early complications and twice as high adjusted one-year mortality compared to those enrolled (n=729). One major reason for the difference in outcome appeared to be the selection of less critically ill patients to the trial.
KLICKA HÄR FÖR ATT SE AVHANDLINGEN I FULLTEXT. (PDF-format)