Early Risk Stratification, Treatment and Outcome in ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction
Abstract: 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.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE WHOLE DISSERTATION. (in PDF format)