OBJECTIVE: System delay is associated with mortality in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the influence of patient delay has been relatively overlooked. We aimed to evaluate the influence of patient and system delays on STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI in China.
METHODS: STEMI patients registered at the Nationwide Chinese Cardiovascular Association Database-Chest Pain Center from January 2017 to September 2021 were screened. The exposures were total ischemic time (TIT), system delay and patient delay. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS: Among 458,260 patients from 2,529 centers, median TIT, system delay and patient delay were 4.1, 1.5 and 2.1 hours, respectively. The adjusted odds ratio of in-hospital mortality increased by 2.2% (odds ratio [OR], 1.022, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.017-1.027), 2.3% (1.023, 1.006-1.040) and 2.2% (1.022, 1.017-1.027) for every one-hour increase in TIT, system delay and patient delay, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient delay demonstrated a comparable impact to system delay on in-hospital mortality among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Widespread primary PCI-capable center, improved awareness about myocardial infarction and regional transfer system are essential to shorten patient delay.

BACKGROUND: Historically, differences in timely reperfusion and outcomes have been described in females who suffer ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there have been improvements in the treatment of STEMI patients with contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) strategies.
METHODS: Comparisons between sexes were performed on STEMI patients treated with primary PCI over a 4-year period (January 1, 2017-December 31, 2020) from the Queensland Cardiac Outcomes Registry. Primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were STEMI performance measures. The total and direct effects of gender on mortality outcomes were estimated using logistic and multinomial logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Overall, 2747 (76% male) were included. Females were on average older (65.9 vs. 61.9 years; p < 0.001), had longer total ischemic time (69 min vs. 52 min; p < 0.001) and less achievement of STEMI performance targets (<90 min) (50% vs. 58%; p < 0.001). There was no evidence for a total (odds ratio [OR] 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-2.2; p = 0.35) or direct (adjusted OR 1.2 (95% CI: 0.7-2.1; p = 0.58) effect of female sex on 30-day mortality. One-year mortality was higher in females (6.9% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.014) with total effect estimates consistent with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (Incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0-2.3; p = 0.059) and noncardiovascular mortality (IRR: 2.1; 95% CI: 0.9-4.7; p = 0.077) in females. However, direct (adjusted) effect estimates of cardiovascular mortality (IRR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6-1.6; p = 0.94) indicated sex differences were explained by confounders and mediators.
CONCLUSIONS: Small sex differences in STEMI performance measures still exist; however, with contemporary primary PCI strategies, sex is not associated with cardiovascular mortality at 30 days or 1 year.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of STEMI and subsequent mortality has been reported to be higher in Indian populations compared to developed countries. However, there is limited data directly comparing contemporary primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) treatment strategies and clinical outcomes for STEMI patients between developed and developing countries.
METHODS: We compared population demographics, procedural characteristics, times to reperfusion and mortality in STEMI patients treated with pPCI between two tertiary referral centers in India and Australia respectively over a 3-year period (1st Jan 2017-31st Dec 2019).
RESULTS: A total of 1293 STEMI presentations (896 Indian vs 397 Australian) were included. On average, Indian patients had lower median BMI than Australian patients (BMI 25.4 vs 27.8; p < 0.001), were significantly younger (mean age 56.0 vs 63.2 years; p < 0.001), more likely male (84 % vs 80 %; p = 0.046) and diabetic (48 % vs 18 %); p < 0.001). Radial access (50 % vs 88 %; p < 0.001) and TIMI III flow post PCI was also significantly lower (85 % vs 96 %; p < 0.001) with median door-to-balloon time significantly shorter in the Indian cohort (20mins vs 43mins; p < 0.001); however, median symptom to balloon time was significantly longer (245mins vs 160mins; p < 0.001). No significant differences in 30-day mortality (4.0 % vs 2.8 % Australian; p = 0.209) or 1-year mortality (6.5 % vs 4.3 %; p = 0.120) were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in demographics and presentation characteristics exist between Indian and Australian STEMI patients treated with pPCI. Indian patients had significantly longer pre-hospital delays and lower achievement of TIMI III flow post PCI, yet shorter in-hospital time to treatment.

Background: Early discharge following ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) confers notable advantages for both patients and healthcare systems. However, the adoption of a very early discharge strategy for selected patients remains limited due to safety considerations. We aimed to provide some insight into the safety of a discharge program with a hospital stay lasting <48 h after a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: Using a registry of 1105 patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI in our hospital between January 2015 and October 2023, we enrolled all the patients who had a hospital stay ≤48 h, according to a prespecified institutional protocol. The primary objective was a combined rate of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death within 30 days of discharge. Emergency department visits or hospitalizations due to cardiovascular causes, along with the all-cause mortality, were measured during the same period. Results: A total of 453 (41%) patients were discharged ≤48 h after admission for a STEMI. The mean age was 62.4 (±12.5 years), 24.3% were women, and 17.9% were people with diabetes. Up to 96% of the procedures had been performed through radial artery access, and there were no major vascular complications. Regarding the primary endpoint, there was one event (0.2%; one patient suffered a non-fatal myocardial infarction). There were no cardiovascular deaths or deaths from other causes. Only five patients (1.1%) were re-hospitalized or visited the emergency department due to cardiovascular causes. Conclusions: An early discharge strategy for patients within 48 h of experiencing STEMI and undergoing primary PCI appears feasible and safe.

Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) share a number of similarities. However, important differences in pathophysiology demand a disease-tailored approach. In both conditions, fast treatment plays a crucial role as ischaemia and eventually infarction develop rapidly. Furthermore, in both fields, the introduction of fibrinolytic treatments historically preceded the implementation of endovascular techniques. However, in contrast to STEMI, only a minority of AIS patients will eventually be considered eligible for reperfusion treatment. Non-invasive cerebral imaging always precedes cerebral angiography and thrombectomy, whereas coronary angiography is not routinely preceded by non-invasive cardiac imaging in patients with STEMI. In the late or unknown time window, the presence of specific patterns on brain imaging may help identify AIS patients who benefit most from reperfusion treatment. For STEMI, a uniform time window for reperfusion up to 12 h after symptom onset, based on old placebo-controlled trials, is still recommended in guidelines and generally applied. Bridging fibrinolysis preceding endovascular treatment still remains the mainstay of reperfusion treatment in AIS, while primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the strategy of choice in STEMI. Shortening ischaemic times by fine-tuning collaboration networks between ambulances, community hospitals, and tertiary care hospitals, optimizing bridging fibrinolysis, and reducing ischaemia-reperfusion injury are important topics for further research. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the common as well as diverging pathophysiology behind current reperfusion strategies and to explore new ways to enhance their clinical benefit.

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.
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.
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 (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing deferred PCI experienced a significantly lower improvement in LVEF compared with primary and rescue PCI (p < 0.001).
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.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of postdilatation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is feared to induce suboptimal coronary blood flow and compromise the outcome of the patients. This meta-analysis sought to verify whether postdilatation during primary PCI is associated with worse angiographic or long-term clinical outcomes.
METHODS: Systematic literature searches were conducted on PubMed, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, EBSCO, and Europe PMC on 10 March 2024. Eligible studies reporting the outcomes of postdilatation among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients were included. The primary outcome was no-reflow condition during primary PCI based on angiographic finding. The secondary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) comprising all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and stent thrombosis.
RESULTS: Ten studies were finally included in this meta-analysis encompassing 3280 patients, which was predominantly male (76.6%). Postdilatation was performed in 40.7% cases. Postdilatation was associated with increased risk of no-reflow during primary PCI [Odd Ratio (OR) = 1.33, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.12-1.58; P = .001)]. Conversely, postdilatation had a tendency to reduce MACE (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.97; P = .03) specifically in terms of TVR (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.22-0.74; P = .003). No significant differences between both groups in relation to mortality (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.32-1.05; P = .07) and myocardial infarction (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 0.78-2.89; P = .22).
CONCLUSIONS: Postdilatation after stent deployment during primary PCI appears to be associated with an increased risk of no-reflow phenomenon after the procedure. Nevertheless, postdilatation strategy has demonstrated a significant reduction in MACE over the course of long-term follow-up. Specifically, postdilatation significantly decreased the occurrence of TVR. Key messages: What is already known on this topic?  Optimizing stent deployment by performing postdilatation during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is essential for long-term clinical outcomes. However, its application during primary PCI is controversial due to the fact that it may provoke distal embolization and worsen coronary blood flow. What this study adds?  In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 studies, we confirm that postdilatation during primary PCI is associated with worse coronary blood flow immediately following the procedure. On the contrary, this intervention proves advantageous in improving long-term clinical outcomes, particularly in reducing target vessel revascularization. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy?  Given the mixed impact of postdilatation during primary PCI, this strategy should only be applied selectively. Future research should focus on identifying patients who may benefit from such strategy.

暂无摘要。

The optimal timing of P2Y12 inhibitor administration in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has not been completely elucidating.
This analysis from a prospective multicenter registry sought to assess the safety and effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment in patients transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within a regional STEMI network.
Pretreatment was defined as P2Y12 inhibitor administration before coronary angiography. Endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, and net adverse clinical events, a composite of MACE or major bleeding, within 30 days of index admission. Association of P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment with outcomes was modeled using doubly robust weighted estimators based on propensity score analysis.
Of 1,624 patients included, 1,033 received P2Y12 inhibitors before angiography and 591 in the catheterization laboratory (cath lab). The non-pretreated cohort more often had history of coronary artery disease and were more likely to receive antiplatelet therapy before the index admission. After adjustment for confounding and dependent censoring, pretreatment with P2Y12 inhibitors predicted lower risk of MACE (adjusted HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.76), without increasing bleeding risk (adjusted HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.36-1.05), resulting in superior net clinical benefit (adjusted HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.26-0.86) compared with in-cath lab administration of P2Y12 inhibitors. There was a significant treatment-by-time interaction for MACE risk, whereby the observed benefits of pretreatment only became apparent when time between P2Y12 inhibitor administration and PCI was longer than 80 minutes.
In contemporary patients with STEMI transferred for primary PCI, pretreatment with P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with a significant time-dependent reduction of 30-day MACE without increasing bleeding risk.

UNASSIGNED: Sacubitril-valsartan has been widely reported for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and improving left ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the effect of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate whether sacubitril-valsartan could reverse left ventricular remodeling and reduce cardiovascular adverse events in AMI patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).
UNASSIGNED: Two researchers independently retrieved the relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang database. The retrieval time was limited from inception to 1 June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 21 RCTs involving 2442 AMI patients who underwent PPCI for revascularization were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), sacubitril-valsartan treatment in AMI patients after PPCI significantly reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.11, 95%CI: -4.05∼-2.16, p < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (WMD -7.76, 95%CI: -12.24∼-3.27, p = 0.001), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (WMD -6.80, 95%CI: -9.45∼-4.15, p < 0.001) and left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) (WMD -2.53, 95%CI: -5.30-0.24, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis according to the dose of sacubitril-valsartan yielded a similar result. Meanwhile, PPCI patients using sacubitril-valsartan therapy showed lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.28-0.46, p < 0.001), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.30-0.98, p = 0.041) and HF (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.26-0.47, p < 0.001) without increasing the risk of renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, or symptomatic hypotension. At the same time, the change of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 3.91, 95%CI: 3.41-4.41, p < 0.001), 6 min walk test (6MWT) (WMD 43.56, 95%CI: 29.37-57.76, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP level (WMD -130.27, 95%CI: -159.14∼-101.40, p < 0.001) were statistically significant.
UNASSIGNED: In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicates that compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril-valsartan may be superior to reverse left ventricular remodeling, improve cardiac function, and effectively reduce the risk of MACE, myocardial reinfarction, and HF in AMI patients after PPCI during follow-up without increasing the risk of adverse reactions including renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, and symptomatic hypotension.