• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Pre-hospital thrombolysis with mandated PCI for AMI
 

Pre-hospital thrombolysis with mandated PCI for AMI

on

  • 783 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
783
Views on SlideShare
783
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Late follow up of streptokinase trials in 84-86 from Harvey White group in New Zealand
  • Median presentation to alteplase time 42 min Median presentation to balloon time 111 min Mortality no different because delay to PCI?
  • STEMI within 12 hours of symptoms. Excluded diabetics on warfarin
  • Patients STEMI within 12 hrs of symptom onset 299 patients within 3hrs, 551 patients after 3hrs D/reMI/CVA in 15.2% after lysis and 8.4% after transfer for PCI Planned 1200 recruitment – terminated early because excess mortality in lysis group 3-12 hrs
  • PCI-time delay is difference between door-to-balloon and door-to-needle times Analysis assumes linear association between time delay and outcome Time delay may be a marker for PCI quality and hence benefit Only 2 studies with time delay >60mins
  • Symptom onset to balloon time did not show relationship with in-hospital mortality Adjustment for institutional volume did not alter model

Pre-hospital thrombolysis with mandated PCI for AMI Pre-hospital thrombolysis with mandated PCI for AMI Presentation Transcript

  • Primary Angioplasty – The case is not proven: pre-hospital thrombolysis with mandated PCI may be equally effective Tony Gershlick University Hospitals of Leicester UK TCT 2005 Department Academic Cardiology Department Academic Cardiology
    • The debate is not about alternatives –but about resources, identifying real outcome differences between treatments, trying remain un-polarised, doing best for all patients with AMI i.e strategies applicable to different scenarios
    • Does the data support the proposal ?
    • What do Kevin and I agree on? Where are our differences?
    • In the real world what is important for the AMI patient ?
    • How good is the PPCI data
    • How good is real world PPCI (cf trial data)
    • How robust is the evidence for superiority of PPCI over thrombolysis (?)
    • How optimal is thrombolysis ?
    • Are there any trials that can still be done ?
    PPCI LYTIC MECHANICAL V
    • “ To a man with a hammer,
    • - all nails look as though they need pounding”
    • Mark Twain
    mission lesions stenting
  • Relationship of TIMI flow grade to survival 5 and 12 year follow up JACC 1999;34:(1) 62-69 P=0.04 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 90 100 TIMI 2 TIMI 1/0 Survival percent 12 5 5 60 70 80 12 12 5 TIMI 3 What do we all agree on ?
  • 100 0 % TIMI Grade 3 patency @ 90 mins SK tPA Accel Reteplase TNKPA tPA Adjunctive LYSIS PPCI TIMI GRADE 3 FLOW 10 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 90
    • In the real world what is important for the AMI patient ? TIMI flow/
    • How good is the PPCI data
    • How good is real world PPCI (cf trial data)
    • How robust is the evidence for superiority of PPCI over thrombolysis
    • How optimal is thrombolysis ?
    • Are there any trials that can still be done ?
    Clinical outcome
  •  
  • Quantitative review of 23 trials of primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis ( n=7739 ) Keeley, Lancet 2003;361:13 Short-term outcome 7.0% 3.0% 1.0% 0.1% 8.0% 9.0% 7.0% 2.0% 1.0% 14.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Death Re-MI Stroke Haem stroke Any event 0.0002 < 0.0001 Primary angioplasty Thrombolysis
  • short term death non-fatal AMI death, non fatal MI stroke
  • C-PORT - Primary Endpoint Through 6 months Primary PCI for AMI Intention to Treat JAMA 2002; 287:1943-51 7.1 10.6 4.0 6.2 5.3 2.2 19.9 12.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 p = 0.03 p = NS p = 0.04 p = NS Accel. t-PA (n=226) PCI (n=225) Combined* Death Reinfarction Disabling Stroke *Primary Endpoint: Death, Reinfarction, or Stroke % of Patients Median Door to Needle Time = 46 min Median Door to Balloon Time = 102 min
  • Short-term clinical outcomes in individuals treated with primary PTCA or thrombolytic therapy, according to type of thrombolytic agent used
    • 2% absolute difference (p=0.0002)
    • 1.6% cf fibrin specific (p=0.021)
    • 1.2% exclude shock (p=0.08)
    • Size trials (15 < 200 patients)
    • Variable definition of end points eg re-infarction
    • Double counting fatal strokes
    • No blinded validation
    Issues related to Keeley’s m-a Mortality Other issues And in real life ? Is this evidence to introduce a new strategy ?
  • NRMI-2: Primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis Tiefenbrunn, JACC 1998;31:1240 Presentation to alteplase 42 min Presentation to balloon 111 min P<0.0001 5.2% 2.5% 0.7% 5.4% 2.9% 1.6% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% Death Re-MI Stroke Primary angioplasty (n=4939) Alteplase (n=24705)
  • USIC 2000, French Registry Data Hospital administered ‘lysis as good as PCI EURO-PCR Paris 2003
  •  
  • TRANSFER
  • DANAMI-2: transfer for primary PCI vs on-site Alteplase (n=1572) Anderson 2003;349:733 p=0.002 P<0.001 6.6% 1.6% 1.1% 8.0% 6.3% 2.0% 13.7% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Death Re-MI Stroke Any event Primary angioplasty Thrombolysis P=0.35 P=0.0003 7.8%
  • TIMI Risk Score N= 1134 Low 0-4 High >5 In-H Lysis 5.6% PPCI 8.0 In-H Lysis 36.2% PPCI 25.3% p=0.02
  • Transfer for primary PCI vs on-site lytic Quantitative review of 5 trials* Keeley, Lancet 2003;361:13 *LIMI, Prague I & II, Air PAMI, DANAMI-2 P=0.057 P<0.0001 P<0.0001 7.0% 1.8% 1.1% 8.2% 8.9% 6.7% 2.2% 15.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% Death Re-MI Stroke Any event Primary PCI (n=1466) Thrombolysis (n=1443)
  • DANAMI-2 Study
    • 790 assigned to PCI
      • 706 PCI attempted (36 technical problems, 31 normal coros, 3 died, 3 CTO, )
      • By intention to treat analysis only 71% achieved TIMI 3 flow.
    • 775 of the 782 assigned to ‘lysis received the treatment 99%
    NEJM 2003;349:733
  • DANAMI-2 Study
    • The reduction in re-infarction occurred where
    • only 2.5% of ‘lysed pts in the referring hospitals subsequently received PCI compared with 28% in invasive centres
      • i.e. Lysed patients were treated conservatively in the referring hospitals
    NEJM 2003;349:733
    • By 30days, 19% ‘lysed pts had PCI and 9% PCI group required repeat PCI
      • ie Primary PCI reduces the need but a significant number require repeat PCI
  • Prague-2: Transfer for PCI vs on-site thrombolysis in acute MI (n=850) Widimsky, Eur Heart J 2003;24:94 Mortality at 30 days Symptoms to balloon 277 min Symptom to lysis 195 min Planned 1200 patients p=0.12 p=0.02 6.8% 7.3% 6.0% 10.0% 7.4% 15.3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% All patients Rx <3hrs of symptoms Rx >3hrs of symptoms Transfer for PCI Streptokinase
    • In the real world what is important for the AMI patient ? TIMI flow/CO
    • How good is the PPCI data NOT GREAT !
    • How good is real world PPCI (cf trial data) Can the trial criteria be achieved
    • How robust is the evidence for superiority of PPCI over thrombolysis
    • How optimal is thrombolysis ?
    • Are there any trials that can still be done ?
  • 23 trials of PCI versus thrombolysis (n=7419) PCI-related time delay (mins) Absolute difference in 4-6 week mortality (%) Nallamothu & Bates, Am J Cardiol 2003;92:824 Circles reflect trial sample size Blue line: weighted meta-regression Mean time delay 39.5 mins (SD 22.1, range 7-104) 0.94% decrease in mortality benefit for every 10 min delay, p=0.006 No evidence of benefit if delay >62mins 0 -5 5 10 15 0 20 40 60 80 100
  • Time to angioplasty in 27080 patients with acute myocardial infarction Cannon, JAMA 2000;283:2941 Multivariate adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality (95% CI) * * * p<0.001 Median door to balloon time 116 mins 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0-60 61-90 91-120 121-150 151-180 >180 Door to balloon time (min)
  •  
  • High failure rate with out-of-hours PCI even in high volume centre
    • In 1702 cases
      • referral centre for 11 hospitals
      • 48% presented between 1800hrs and 0800hrs
      • PCI failure rate 6.9% vs. 3.8% p<0.01
      • 30d mortality 4.2% vs. 1.9% p< 0.01
            • Zwolle Group JACC 2003;41:2138
  •  
  • Nallamothu BK, Bates E R, Herrin J, et al. Times to treatment in transfer patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the US. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI)-3/4 Analysis. Circulation 2005; 111:761-767 Thrombolysis (IH) can be given 30-60 mins after presentation - 60 min (lysis-PPCI) = 90-120 mins door> 80% lost incremental benefit 4278 transfer patients
  • MINAP Data UK 2004 -6 month 2005
  •  
  •  
    • In the real world what is important for the AMI patient ? TIMI flow/CO
    • How good is the PPCI data NOT GREAT !
    • How good is real world PPCI (cf trial data) Can the trial criteria be achieved
    • Are there any trials that can still be done ?
    re AMI X
  • Primary PCI in the UK Resource Implications
    • BCS Working Group on Cardiology Workforce Requirements
      • 2 to 3 pmp additional interventionists for resident shift system or 1-2 pmp for non-resident shift system for Primary PCI
      • additional 150 interventionists for the UK
      • 381 SpR’s in UK
      • We would need to train and recruit the entire output from the SpR scheme for 2 years to fill these posts
    • In the real world what is important for the AMI patient ? TIMI flow/CO
    • How good is the PPCI data NOT GREAT !
    • How good is real world PPCI (cf trial data) Can the trial criteria be achieved
    • How robust is the evidence for superiority of PPCI over thrombolysis
    • How optimal is thrombolysis ?
    • Are there any trials that can still be done ?
    re AMI X
  • Recurrent MI post Thrombolysis
  • Difficult to achieve – can lysis be optimised ? Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Boersma E, Maas AC, Deckers JW, Simoons ML. Lancet. 1996 Sep 21;348(9030):771-5.
  • Pre-hospital thrombolysis: meta-analysis of 6 trials (n=6436) % mortality in-hospital thrombolysis % mortality pre-hospital thrombolysis 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 0 4 6 8 10 12 14 Morrison JAMA 2000;283:2686 OR 0.83 95% CI 0.70-0.98 Time (SE) to thrombolysis: 104 (7) min for pre-hospital 162 (16) mins for in-hospital
  • 50 mins 42 mins arrival to needle 34 mins 11 mins 8 mins EAST MIDLANDS AMBULANCE SERVICE UK
  • PAIN CALL NEEDLE ?~ 60 mins ~ 20 mins FMC ~ 30 mins DOOR ~ 60 mins Door to PCI time to compete is 11 mins 50 mins PCI ~ 60 mins ?~ 60 mins 40 mins FMC PAIN CALL ~ 80- 90 mins
  • Can we improve the outcome of patients receiving pre-hospital lysis ?
  • Primary Endpoint: Occluded Artery (or D/MI thru Angio/HD) Placebo Clopidogrel P=0.00000036 Odds Ratio 0.64 (95% CI 0.53-0.76) 1.0 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6 Clopidogrel better Placebo better n=1752 n=1739 36% Odds Reduction
  • Hierarchical Analysis at 6 Months Re-Lysis Conservative Rescue -PCI The REACT trial in press Gershlick et al C Death 10.6 9.9 5.6 Re AMI 10.6 8.5 2.1 CVA (ich) 0.7 0.7 2.1 Severe HF 7.0 7.8 4.9
  • Chest Pain Paramedic  AMI 90 min ECG 300 mg clopidogrel PH Lysis MANDATED RESCUE PCI (REACT) Pre-discharge angio (GRACIA) REACT-2 PPCI 600 mg clopidogrel
  • Primary PCI in the UK Resource Implications
    • BCS Working Group on Cardiology Workforce Requirements
      • 2 to 3 pmp additional interventionists for resident shift system or 1-2 pmp for non-resident shift system for Primary PCI
      • additional 150 interventionists for the UK
      • 381 SpR’s in UK
      • We would need to train and recruit the entire output from the SpR scheme for 2 years to fill these posts
  • Advantages of Integrated approach
    • Combines the best of 2 complementary treatments
    • From the start treatment can be individualised
    • Lives and myocardium being saved from the start
    • Emergency PCI required less often (>50% have TIMI 3 flow)
    • PCI done more safely –more stable patients, patent IRA , better visualisation etc etc
  • Summary & Conclusions
    • Case versus Non PPCI is unproven
    • PPCI only approach is blinkered
    • Primary PCI may have some advantages if it can be undertaken extremely quickly and within the time frames of the RCT earlier if to compete with PHL !
    • PHL with mandated rescue has added advantages of earlier treatment, but must have mandated rescue and pre-hospital discharge assessment built in
    • ONLY when the appropriate trial has been done can PPCI be considered the optimal treatment of choice considering the changes in logistics required for a whole country – even then there is evidence of failure to meet time lines and serious resource implications
    • Can we afford to implement a strategy that cannot be delivered and may be no better than a model that suits all PHL + Mandated R-PCI ?
  • The problems with the catch-all unselective approach The “Kevins” of the world “ The clinical scientist”