Effect of different reperfusion strategies on recovery of ventricular function after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A longitudinal single-center study.

ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction facilitated PCI left ventricular ejection fraction percutaneous coronary intervention primary PCI rescue PCI

Journal

Health science reports
ISSN: 2398-8835
Titre abrégé: Health Sci Rep
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101728855

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2024
Historique:
received: 01 02 2024
revised: 09 05 2024
accepted: 14 06 2024
medline: 27 6 2024
pubmed: 27 6 2024
entrez: 27 6 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Although the clinical benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on cardiovascular outcomes has been widely investigated, the impact of this revascularization strategy compared to other alternatives on the degree of left ventricular function recovery is poorly demonstrated. In this regard, we investigated whether time delays between the presentation of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and PCI in reperfusion strategies have different impacts on left ventricular function recovery. In this single-center study, all the patients who presented with STEMI and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) were enrolled. Included patients were subjected to four different treatment groups of primary, rescue (immediate transfer for angioplasty due to failed fibrinolytic therapy), facilitated (fibrinolytic therapy followed by angioplasty within 24 h), and deferred (successful fibrinolytic therapy and PCI after 24 h) PCI based on hospital facilities. Echocardiography was performed for all the patients at the time of hospitalization and 6 months later. A total of 128 patients were included in this study. The LVEF improved by 15.3 ± 6.3%, 11.5 ± 3.61%, 4.0 ± 1.0%, and -1.3 ± 7.0% in primary, rescue, facilitated, and deferred PCI groups, respectively ( Primary PCI demonstrated the most promising recovery in left ventricular function following STEMI compared to other alternative strategies. Performing PCI as soon as possible provides better recovery of LVEF.

Sections du résumé

Background and Aims UNASSIGNED
Although the clinical benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on cardiovascular outcomes has been widely investigated, the impact of this revascularization strategy compared to other alternatives on the degree of left ventricular function recovery is poorly demonstrated. In this regard, we investigated whether time delays between the presentation of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and PCI in reperfusion strategies have different impacts on left ventricular function recovery.
Methods UNASSIGNED
In this single-center study, all the patients who presented with STEMI and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) were enrolled. Included patients were subjected to four different treatment groups of primary, rescue (immediate transfer for angioplasty due to failed fibrinolytic therapy), facilitated (fibrinolytic therapy followed by angioplasty within 24 h), and deferred (successful fibrinolytic therapy and PCI after 24 h) PCI based on hospital facilities. Echocardiography was performed for all the patients at the time of hospitalization and 6 months later.
Results UNASSIGNED
A total of 128 patients were included in this study. The LVEF improved by 15.3 ± 6.3%, 11.5 ± 3.61%, 4.0 ± 1.0%, and -1.3 ± 7.0% in primary, rescue, facilitated, and deferred PCI groups, respectively (
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Primary PCI demonstrated the most promising recovery in left ventricular function following STEMI compared to other alternative strategies. Performing PCI as soon as possible provides better recovery of LVEF.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38933425
doi: 10.1002/hsr2.2220
pii: HSR22220
pmc: PMC11199175
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e2220

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s). Health Science Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Armin Attar (A)

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, TAHA Clinical Trial Group Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.

Soheila Namvar (S)

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, TAHA Clinical Trial Group Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.

Alireza Hosseinpour (A)

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, TAHA Clinical Trial Group Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.
School of Medicine Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.

Pouria Azami (P)

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, TAHA Clinical Trial Group Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.

Arash Shekari (A)

Cardiovascular Diseases Research Institute, Tehran Heart Center Tehran University of Medical Sciences Tehran Iran.

Leila Jamali (L)

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, TAHA Clinical Trial Group Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.

Neda Goudarzi (N)

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, TAHA Clinical Trial Group Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Shiraz Iran.

Classifications MeSH