Publish in this journal
Journal Information
Vol. 68. Issue 4.
Pages 343-345 (April 2015)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 68. Issue 4.
Pages 343-345 (April 2015)
Scientific letter
DOI: 10.1016/j.rec.2014.10.014
Full text access
Noninvasive Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction. Clinical Profile and Predictors of Poor Prognosis
Tratamiento no invasivo del infarto agudo de miocardio. Perfil clínico de los pacientes y variables predictoras de mal pronóstico
Visits
...
Rocío González Ferreiro
Corresponding author
ferreiro_44@hotmail.com

Corresponding author:
, Sergio Raposeiras Roubín, Emad Abu Assi, María Castiñeiras Busto, José María García Acuña, José Ramón González Juanatey
Servicio de Cardiología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain
Article information
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (1)
Tables (1)
Table. Basal Characteristics of Patients Hospitalized for STEMI and NSTEMI, Stratified According to Treatment Received Cconservative vs Invasive Management)
Full Text
To the Editor,

In current clinical practice, only a small percentage of patients with acute coronary syndrome are treated conservatively (receiving neither coronary angiography nor fibrinolysis). Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines1 recommend that patients suffering an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergo invasive intervention, in addition to medical treatment of proven prognostic efficacy; this invasive treatment should take the form of emergent reperfusion therapy for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and early coronary angiography for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Certain clinical situations accompanying acute coronary syndrome exclude patients from this intensive management strategy. The typical clinical profile in such cases is that of a fragile elderly patient with anemia and renal failure or other important comorbidities that justify conservative management.

Here we present an analysis of in-hospital and long-term mortality among AMI patients in our population who were assigned to conservative treatment by the on-duty physician. The aim was to identify variables that predict poor prognosis in these patients.

We analyzed the records of 4408 patients consecutively admitted to our hospital between 2003 and 2012 with a diagnosis of AMI (1745 with STEMI and 2663 with NSTEMI). Of these patients, 460 received conservative medical treatment (127 [7.3%] with STEMI and 333 [12.5%] with NSTEMI); 84 STEMI patients presented > 24hours after symptom onset. Among the total group of STEMI patients, 54 (3.1%) received fibrinolytic treatment and all were later examined by angiography. Patients assigned to conservative management tended to be older, and this group included a higher percentage of women and patients with diabetes mellitus, had a worse Killip class, and had lower hemoglobin and higher creatinine readings (Table). All of this, as is well known, implies a poor prognosis for patients receiving conservative medical treatment.1

Table.

Basal Characteristics of Patients Hospitalized for STEMI and NSTEMI, Stratified According to Treatment Received Cconservative vs Invasive Management)

  STEMINSTEMI
  Conservative management (n = 127)  Invasive management (n = 1618)  P  Conservative management (n = 333)  Invasive management (n = 2330)  P 
Age, mean (SD), years  83.3 (9.4)  65.2 (13.6)  < .001  80.1 (10.5)  67.9 (12.1)  < .001 
Sex (women), %  51.2  24.6  < .001  45.3  27.3  < .001 
Diabetes mellitus, %  31.5  22.2  .016  39.9  30.6  .001 
Arterial hypertension, %  54.3  46.2  .078  67.9  59.3  .003 
Dyslipidemia, %  26.0  38.3  .006  42.3  47.0  .115 
Peripheral artery disease, %  8.7  7.5  .627  17.1  11.2  .002 
Previous myocardial infarction, %  7.1  5.3  .378  24.4  13.6  < .001 
Previous stroke, %  15.0  5.2  < .001  15.0  6.8  < .001 
Previous neoplasia, %  8.7  5.9  .314  13.2  7.5  < .001 
Killip class ≥ II, %  51.2  22.4  < .001  44.7  17.5  < .001 
Hemoglobin, mean (SD), g/dL  13.2 (1.9)  14.2 (1.8)  < .001  12.6 (1.9)  13.9 (1.8)  < .001 
Creatine, mean (SD), g/dL  1.3 (0.6)  1.1 (0.5)  < .001  1.4 (1.0)  1.1 (0.7)  < .001 
Troponin I, mean (SD), ng/L  44.0 (63.9)  79.6 (96.8)  < .001  11.1 (17.7)  10.6 (28.1)  .666 
ASA, %  89.8  94.4  .031  88.3  93.3  .001 
Clopidogrel, %  43.3  89.2  < .001  58.3  82.1  < .001 
Beta-blockers, %  39.4  64.4  < .001  47.1  64.7  < .001 
ACEI/ARB, %  48.8  59.1  .024  52.6  55.5  .313 
Statin, %  56.7  80.1  < .001  62.2  79.2  < .001 
In-hospital death, %  28.3  7.5  < .001  18.0  3.8  < .001 
Postdischarge death, %  48.0  15.1  < .001  53.5  22.1  < .001 

ACEI, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blocker; ASA, acetylsalicylic acid; NSTEMI: non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction; STEMI: ST segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Among patients receiving conservative treatment, we analyzed variables associated with a worse prognosis during in-hospital care and long-term follow-up; in-hospital and long-term mortality were analyzed independently in the two types of AMI by multivariate analysis (binary logistic regression for in-hospital mortality and Cox regression for long-term mortality), with adjustments for first-order interactions between covariates.

Among NSTEMI patients, univariate analysis indicated an association of high in-hospital mortality with diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] = 1.79; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 1.02-3.14; P = .042), Killip class ≥ II (OR = 6.81; 95%CI, 3.46-13.43; P < .001), hemoglobin (OR = 0.85; 95%CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .027), creatinine (OR = 1.49; 95%CI, 1.17-1.90; P = .001) and troponin (OR = 1.02; 95%CI, 1.01-1.04; P = .001). In-hospital mortality in these patients was also associated with nontreatment with beta-blockers (OR = 0.19; 95%CI, 0.09-0.39; P < .001), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (OR = 0.35; 95%CI, 0.19-0.63; P < .001), or statins (OR = 0.23; 95%CI, 0.16-0.32; P < .001). In the multivariate analysis, only Killip class ≥ II persisted as an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR = 4.5; 95%CI, 2.13-9.53; P < .001).

Long-term mortality in NSTEMI patients (4.2 ± 2.8 years) was positively associated with the following variables: age (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06; 95%CI, 1.04-1.08; P < .001), peripheral artery disease (HR = 1.70; 95%CI, 1.18-2.46; P = .005), previous AMI (HR = 1.46; 95%CI, 1.06-2.02; P = .022), Killip class ≥ II (HR = 2.43, 95%CI, 1.79-3.28; P < .001), hemoglobin (HR = 0.88; 95%CI, 0.81-0.95; P = .001), creatinine (HR = 1.27; 95%CI, 1.13-1.44; P < .001), and troponin (HR = 1.01; 95%CI, 1.01-1.02; P < .001). Indicators of good prognosis were treatments with beta-blockers (HR = 0.50; 95%CI, 0.37-0.68; P < .001) and statins (HR = 0.55; 95%CI, 0.47-0.66; P < .001). After the multivariate analysis, the following persisted as independent predictors of mortality: age (HR = 1.06; 95%CI, 1.03-1.09; P < .001), peripheral artery disease (HR = 1.71; 95%CI, 1.06-2.76; P = .028), previous AMI (HR = 1.76; 95%CI, 1.15-2.71; P = .009), Killip class ≥ II (HR = 1.59; 95%CI, 1.05-2.41; P = .028), hemoglobin (HR = 0.87; 95%CI, 0.77-0.98; P = .020), creatinine (HR = 1.38; 95%CI, 1.07-1.77; P = .013), and nontreatment with statins (HR = 0.79; 95%CI, 0.62-0.99; P = .042).

Among patients with STEMI, univariate analysis showed association of high in-hospital mortality with Killip class ≥ II (OR = 8.00; 95%CI, 3.02-21.17; P < .001), creatinine (OR = 1.72; 95%CI, 0.97-3.05; p = .062), and troponin (OR = 1.01; 95%CI, 0.99-1.02; P = .079). Indicators of good prognosis were treatments with beta-blockers (OR = .21; 95%CI, 0.08-0.56; P = .002), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers OR = 0.19; 95%CI, 0.08-0.48; P < .001), and statins (OR = 0.15; 95%CI, 0.06-0.36; P < .001). In the multivariable analysis, the only independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were Killip class ≥ II (OR = 5.22; 95%CI, 1.44-18.86; P = .012) and treatment with statins (OR = 0.79; 95%CI, 0.06-0.63; P = .006).

Long-term mortality of STEMI patients was associated with age (HR = 1.09; 95%CI, 1.04-1.15; P = .001), hemoglobin (HR = 0.86; 95%CI, 0.76-0.97; P = .015), and creatinine (HR = 1.72; 95%CI, 1.18-2.49; P = .004). After multivariate analysis, only age persisted as an independent mortality predictor (HR = 1.09; 95%CI, 1.04-1.15; p = .001).

For in-hospital mortality, we conducted a sensitivity analysis, eliminating patients who died during the first 48 hours (68 with STEMI and 18 with NSTEMI, out of 307 in-hosptial deaths). Killip class ≥ II remained as an independent mortality predictor in both the NSTEMI group (OR = 7.41; 95%CI, 4.82-11.39; P < .001) and the STEMI group (OR = 10.58; 95%CI, 6,26-17,89; P < .001), and statins treatment persisted as a predictor of good prognosis in the STEMI group (OR = 0.19; 95%CI, 0.12-0.32; p < .001).

Our results clearly show that patients under conservative management have a higher basal risk than those treated invasively, which could justify invasive therapy. Of the variables analyzed, the only independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in the 2 infarction groups is Killip class ≥ II, an indicator of major clinical and hemodynamic instability. Notably, age is not a predictor of in-hospital mortality in either of the AMI groups, but is a predictor of mortality risk during follow-up. The influence of age on the treatment of acute coronary syndrome was analyzed in the MINAP registry, which showed that the use of invasive treatment was less frequent in older patients, despite demonstrated mortality reductions with this approach in all age groups.2

In conclusion, in daily clinical practice it is common to encounter patients with AMI who are treated conservatively, without coronary angiography (approximately 1 in 10). These patients have a poor cardiovascular risk profile and a dismal prognosis (Figure), with mortality exceeding 20% during hospital care and approaching 50% during postdischarge follow-up. Killip class is the only predictor of mortality during hospitalization, and age is the variable most strongly associated with mortality during follow-up.

Figure.

Kaplan-Meier curves for patients in our population with acute myocardial infarction, grouped according to treatment regimen (conservative management with no coronary angiography vs invasive management).

(0.19MB).
References
[1]
V. Bertomeu, A. Cequier, J.L. Bernal, F. Alfonso, M.P. Anguita, J. Muñiz, et al.
Mortalidad intrahospitalaria por infarto agudo de miocardio. Relevancia del tipo de hospital y la atención dispensada. Estudio RECALCAR.
Rev Esp Cardiol., 66 (2013), pp. 935-942
[2]
M.J. Zaman, S. Stirling, L. Shepstone, A. Ryding, M. Flather, M. Bachmann, et al.
The association between older age and receipt of care and outcomes in patients with acute coronary síndromes: a cohort of the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP).
Eur Heart J., 35 (2014), pp. 1551-1558
Copyright © 2014. Sociedad Española de Cardiología
Idiomas
Revista Española de Cardiología (English Edition)

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?