Drugs

, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 31–48 | Cite as

Reperfusion Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Which Strategy for Which Patient?
  • Eric Boersma
  • Ewout W. Steyerberg
  • Maureen J. Van der Vlugt
  • Maarten L. Simoons
Disease Management

Abstract

Several modes of reperfusion therapy for evolving myocardial infarction (MI) have been developed, which differ in terms of effectiveness, complexity and costs. Reperfusion resources are often restricted by budgetary or logistical circumstances. To arrive at an equitable distribution of treatment options, physicians should therefore consider which treatment to apply in which patient. Two major questions which arise in this respect are discussed here: what is the treatment effect in an individual patient, and what is an equitable resource allocation?

Currently, the most relevant treatment options are: streptokinase (1.5MU over 1h), reteplase (2 boluses of 10MU), alteplase (tissue plasminogen activator; t-PA) [100mg over 1.5 hours] and immediate angioplasty. In combination with aspirin, streptokinase leads to an almost 40% mortality reduction at 1 month compared with placebo [from 13.2 to 8.0%; Second International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-2) trial]. The Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO-1) study demonstrated a further mortality reduction by early combination therapy of aspirin, intravenous heparin and alteplase vs aspirin, heparin (either intravenous or subcutaneous) plus streptokinase (from 7.3 to 6.3%). The clinical effects of reteplase fall somewhere between those of streptokinase and alteplase. Combined analysis of the angioplasty trials suggests that angioplasty is superior to thrombolysis, especially in patients with a high cerebral bleeding risk. The noticed gradient of efficacy runs parallel to a gradient of costs and complexity: streptokinase is the least costly treatment option while direct angioplasty is the most expensive and complex.

Subgroup analyses indicate that there are neither apparent deviations in the relative effect of reperfusion therapy as compared to control treatment, nor in the additional effect of more intensive therapy (alteplase) upon ‘standard’ therapy (streptokinase). Consequently, the absolute number of deaths avoided by reperfusion therapy appears to be greatest in those groups with a high mortality risk without therapy. There is one major exception: in patients treated early after symptom onset a much greater relative mortality reduction is observed than in those treated later.

Owing to the higher mortality risk, the life expectancy of a patient with MI is shorter than that of an ‘average’ person of the same community and the same age. Since mortality reduction by reperfusion therapy is maintained at long term follow-up, part of this potential loss can be regained. This ‘re-gain of lost years’ is judged to be the ultimate treatment effect in an individual patient. An equitable treatment allocation should be such that patients who will benefit most will receive the most effective therapy, while patients with similar expected benefit will be offered the same mode of therapy.

The conclusion is that treatment guidelines or protocols can be very useful in clinical practice, especially if rapid decision making is of vital importance.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Acute Myocardial Infarction Streptokinase Thrombolytic Therapy Alteplase 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’ (FTT) Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1,000 patients. Lancet 1994; 343: 311–22Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weaver WD, Simes RJ, Betriu A, et al. Primary coronary angioplasty vs. intravenous thrombolysis for treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative overview of their comparative effectiveness. JAMA 1997; 278(23): 2093–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hermens W, Willems GM, Nijssen KM, et al. Effect of thrombolytic treatment delay on myocardial infarction size [letter]. Lancet 1992; 340: 1297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boersma E, Maas ACP, Deckers JW, et al. Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the ‘golden hour’. Lancet 1996; 348: 771–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Boer MJ, van Hout B, Liem AL, et al. A cost-effective analysis of primary coronary angioplasty versus thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1995; 76: 830–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, et al. Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator versus streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction: results from the GUSTO randomized trial. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1418–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bode C, Smalling RW, Berg G, et al. Randomized comparison of coronary thrombolysis achieved with double-bolus reteplase (recombinant plasminogen activator) and front-loaded, accelerated alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator) in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1996; 94: 891–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    GUSTO angiographic investigators. The effects of tissue plasminogen activator, streptokinase, or both on coronary-artery patency, ventricular function, and survival after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1615–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, et al. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 382: 673–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell’Infarto miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1986; I: 397–401Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISAM Study Group. A prospective trial of intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction (ISAM): mortality, morbidity, and infarct size at 21 days. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 1465–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Second International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-2) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet 1988; II: 349–60Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Baigent C, Collins R, for the ISIS Collaborative Group. ISIS-2: 4-year mortality follow-up of 17,187 patients after fibrinolytic and antiplatelet therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction [abstract]. Circulation 1993; 88 Suppl.: 1–291Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Simoons ML, Arnold AER. Tailored thrombolytic therapy: a perspective. Circulation 1993; 88: 2556–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto miocardico. GISSI-2: a factorial randomised trial of alteplase versus streptokinase and heparin versus no heparin among 12,490 patients with acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1990; 336: 65–71Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    International Study Group. In-hospital mortality and clinical course of 20,891 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction randomised between alteplase and streptokinase with or without heparin. Lancet 1990; 336: 71–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Third International Study of Infarct Survival (ISIS-3) Collaborative Group. ISIS-3: a randomised comparison of streptokinase vs. tissue plasminogen activator vs. anistreplase and of aspirin plus heparin vs. aspirin alone among 41,299 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1992; 339: 753–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    GUSTO Investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 673–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Califf RM, White HD, Sadowski Z, et al. One year results from the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and tPA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO-I) trial. Circulation 1996; 94: 1233–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smalling RW, Bode C, Kalbfleisch J, et al. More rapid, complete, and stable coronary thrombolysis with bolus administration of reteplase compared with alteplase infusion in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1995; 91: 2725–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Joint Efficacy Comparison of Thrombolytics. Randomised, double-blind comparison of reteplase double-bolus administration with streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction (INJECT): trial to investigate equivalence. Lancet 1995; 346: 329–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    American Heart Association. GUSTO-III: a randomised trial of reteplase (r-PA) versus accelerated alteplase (t-PA) for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. New Orleans: American Heart Association, 1996Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    PRIMI Trial Study Group. Randomised double-blind trial of recombinant pro-urokinase against streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1989; I: 863–8Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bär FW, Meyer J, Vermeer F, et al. Comparison of saruplase and alteplase in acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1997; 79: 727–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vanderschueren S, Barrios L, Kerdsinchai P, et al. A randomized trial of recombinant staphylokinase versus alteplase for coronary artery patency in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1995; 92: 2044–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gore JM, Granger CB, Simoons ML, et al. Stroke after thrombolysis: mortality and functional outcomes in the GUSTO-I trial. Circulation 1995; 92: 2811–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Granger CG, Simoons ML. Complications of lytic and anti-thrombotic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. In: Cardiovascular thrombosis: thrombocardiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998, in pressGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Michels KB, Yusuf S. Does PTCA in acute myocardial infarction affect mortality and reinfarction rates? A quantitative overview (meta-analysis) of the randomized clinical trials. Circulation 1995; 91: 476–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thayssen P, Grande P, Madsen JK, et al. Improved clinical outcome following delayed coronary angioplasty after first myocardial infarction [abstract]. Eur Heart J 1997; 18 Suppl.: 587Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Bono DP, Simoons ML, Tijssen J, et al. Effect of early intravenous heparin on coronary patency, infarct size, and bleeding complications after alteplase thrombolysis: results of a randomised double blind European Cooperative Study Group trial. Br Heart J 1992; 67: 122–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Antman EM. Hirudin in acute myocardial infarction: safety report from the Thrombolysis and Thrombin Inhibition in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 9A trial. Circulation 1994; 90: 1624–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) Ha Investigators. Randomised trial of intravenous heparin versus recombinant hirudin for acute coronary syndromes. Circulation 1994; 90: 1631–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) IIb investigators. A comparison of recombinant hirudin with heparin for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 775–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Antman EM. Hirudin in acute myocardial infarction: Thrombolysis and Thrombin Inhibition in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 9B trial. Circulation 1996; 94: 911–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Serruys PW, Garcia-Fernandez E, Kiemeney F, et al. Heparincoated stent in acute myocardial infarction: a pilot study as preamble to a large randomized trial comparing balloon angioplasty and stenting [abstract]. Eur Heart J 1997; 18 Suppl.: 272Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    EPIC investigators. Use of a monoclonal antibody directed against the platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor in high-risk coronary angioplasty. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 956–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    CAPTURE investigators. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of abciximab before and during coronary intervention in refractory unstable angina: the CAPTURE study. Lancet 1997; 349: 1429–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    European Society of Cardiology. PURSUIT: a randomized, double-blind evaluation of the efficacy and safety of two dosing regimens of integrelin versus placebo for reducing mortality and myocardial (re)infarction in patients with unstable angina or non-Q wave myocardial infarction. European Society of Cardiology; 1997 Aug 24–28; StockholmGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kareiakes DJ, Kleiman NS, Ambrose J, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging study of tirofiban (MK-383) platelet IIb/IIIa blockade in high risk patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 27: 536–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tcheng JE. Glycoprotein IIb/IIa receptor inhibitors: putting the EPIC, IMPACT II, RESTORE, and EPILOG trials into perspective. Am J Cardiol 1996; 78 Suppl. 3A: 35–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Theroux P, Kouz S, Roy L, et al. Platelet membrane receptor glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonism in unstable angina: the Canadian Lamifiban Study. Circulation 1996; 94: 899–905PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ohman ME, Kleiman NS, Gacioch G, et al. Combined accelerated tissue plasminogen activator and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIa integrin receptor blockade with integrelin in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1997; 95: 846–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reperfusion Therapy Consensus Group. Selection of reperfusion therapy for individual patients with evolving myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 1997; 18: 1371–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    White H. Thrombolytic therapy for patients with myocardial infarction presenting after six hours. Lancet 1992; 340: 221–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boersma E, van der Vlugt M, Arnold AER, et al. Estimated gain in life expectancy: a simple tool to select optimal reperfusion treatment in individual patients with evolving myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 1996; 17: 64–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Arnold AER. Benefits and risks of thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction [thesis]. Rotterdam: Universiteits Drukkerij, 1990Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    European Myocardial Infarction Project Group. Prehospital thrombolytic therapy in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 383–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stone GW, Grines CL, Rothbaum D, et al. Analysis of the relative costs and effectiveness of primary angioplasty versus tissue-type plasminogen activator: the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 29: 901–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Every NR, Parsons LS, Hlatky M, et al. A comparison of thrombolytic therapy with primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1253–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Califf RM, Woodlief LH, Harreil FE, et al. Selection of thrombolytic therapy for individual patients: development of a clinical model. Am Heart J 1997; 133: 630–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO-IIb) Angioplasty Substudy Investigators. A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1621–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lee KL, Woodlief LH, Topol EJ, et al. Predictors of 30-day mortality in the era of reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction: results from an international trial of 41,021 patients. Circulation 1995; 91: 1659–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vermeer F, Simoons ML, Bär F, et al. Which patients benefit most from early thrombolytic therapy with intracoronary streptokinase? Circulation 1986; 74: 1379–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lenderink T, Simoons ML, van Es GA, et al. Benefit of thrombolytic therapy is sustained throughout five years and is related to TIMI perfusion grade 3 but not grade 2 flow at discharge. Circulation 1995; 92: 1110–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Simoons ML, Maggioni AP, Knatterud G, et al. Individual risk assessment for intracranial haemorrhage during thrombolytic therapy. Lancet 1993; 342: 1523–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mark DB, Naylor CD, Hlatky MA, et al. Use of medical resources and quality of life after acute myocardial infarction in Canada and the United States. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1130–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Crisp R, Hope T, Ebbs D. The Asbury draft policy on ethical use of resources. BMJ 1996; 312: 1528–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adls International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric Boersma
    • 1
  • Ewout W. Steyerberg
    • 1
  • Maureen J. Van der Vlugt
    • 1
  • Maarten L. Simoons
    • 1
  1. 1.University Hospital Rotterdam-DijkzigtRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations