Background: Despite proven advantages of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thrombolysis remains the first line treatment for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) worldwide. Management of patients with failed thrombolysis is still debated, and data from existing randomized controlled trials are conflicting. Aim: To compare the risk/benefit profile of repeat thrombolysis (RT) vs. rescue PCI in patients with failed thrombolysis. Methods: Search of BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, mRCT and PubMed for randomized controlled trials comparing rescue PCI vs. conservative therapy and/or RT vs. conservative therapy. Outcomes of interest assessed by adjusted indirect meta-analysis: major adverse events (MAE, defined as the composite of overall mortality and re-infarction), stroke, congestive heart failure (CHF), major bleeds (MB), and minor bleeds. Overall mortality and re-infarction have been also analysed individually. Results: Eight trials were included ( 1318 patients). Follow-up ranged from ' in-hospital' to 6 months. No significant difference was found for the risk of MAE [ OR 0.93( 0.26-3.35), P=0.4], overall mortality [ OR 1.01( 0.52-1.95), P=0.15], stroke [ OR 5.03( 0.64-39.1), P=0.58] and CHF [ OR 0.74( 0.28-1.96), P=0.6]. Compared with conservative therapy, rescue PCI was associated with a 70% reduction in the risk of re- infarction [ OR 0.32( 0.14 - 0.74), P= 0.008], number needed to treat 17. No difference in terms of MB was found [ OR 0.5( 0.1 - 2.5), P= 0.09], while a greater risk of minor bleeds was observed with rescue PCI [ OR 2.48( 1.08 - 5.7), P= 0.04], number needed to harm 50. Conclusion: Although the observed benefit is modest, these data support the use of PCI after failed thrombolysis.

Repeat thrombolysis or conservative therapy vs. rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for failed thrombolysis: systematic review and meta-analysis / L., Testa; W. J., Van Gaal; BIONDI ZOCCAI, Giuseppe; A., Abbate; P., Agostoni; R., Bhindi; A. P., Banning. - In: QJM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICINE. - ISSN 1460-2725. - 101:5(2008), pp. 387-395. [10.1093/qjmed/hcn018]

Repeat thrombolysis or conservative therapy vs. rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for failed thrombolysis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BIONDI ZOCCAI, GIUSEPPE;
2008

Abstract

Background: Despite proven advantages of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), thrombolysis remains the first line treatment for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) worldwide. Management of patients with failed thrombolysis is still debated, and data from existing randomized controlled trials are conflicting. Aim: To compare the risk/benefit profile of repeat thrombolysis (RT) vs. rescue PCI in patients with failed thrombolysis. Methods: Search of BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, mRCT and PubMed for randomized controlled trials comparing rescue PCI vs. conservative therapy and/or RT vs. conservative therapy. Outcomes of interest assessed by adjusted indirect meta-analysis: major adverse events (MAE, defined as the composite of overall mortality and re-infarction), stroke, congestive heart failure (CHF), major bleeds (MB), and minor bleeds. Overall mortality and re-infarction have been also analysed individually. Results: Eight trials were included ( 1318 patients). Follow-up ranged from ' in-hospital' to 6 months. No significant difference was found for the risk of MAE [ OR 0.93( 0.26-3.35), P=0.4], overall mortality [ OR 1.01( 0.52-1.95), P=0.15], stroke [ OR 5.03( 0.64-39.1), P=0.58] and CHF [ OR 0.74( 0.28-1.96), P=0.6]. Compared with conservative therapy, rescue PCI was associated with a 70% reduction in the risk of re- infarction [ OR 0.32( 0.14 - 0.74), P= 0.008], number needed to treat 17. No difference in terms of MB was found [ OR 0.5( 0.1 - 2.5), P= 0.09], while a greater risk of minor bleeds was observed with rescue PCI [ OR 2.48( 1.08 - 5.7), P= 0.04], number needed to harm 50. Conclusion: Although the observed benefit is modest, these data support the use of PCI after failed thrombolysis.
2008
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Repeat thrombolysis or conservative therapy vs. rescue percutaneous coronary intervention for failed thrombolysis: systematic review and meta-analysis / L., Testa; W. J., Van Gaal; BIONDI ZOCCAI, Giuseppe; A., Abbate; P., Agostoni; R., Bhindi; A. P., Banning. - In: QJM-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICINE. - ISSN 1460-2725. - 101:5(2008), pp. 387-395. [10.1093/qjmed/hcn018]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/434253
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact