4.7 Article

Lack of benefit from percutaneous intervention of persistently occluded infarct arteries after the acute phase of myocardial infarction is time independent: insights from Occluded Artery Trial

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 183-191

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehn486

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
  2. National Institutes of Health [U01 HL062509, U01 HL062511]
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [U01HL062511, U01HL062509] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) (n = 2201) showed no benefit for routine percutaneous intervention (PCI) (n = 1101) over medical therapy (MED) (n = 1100) on the combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and class IV heart failure (congestive heart failure) in stable post-MI patients with late occluded infarct-related arteries (IRAs). We evaluated the potential for selective benefit with PCI over MED for patients enrolled early in OAT. We explored outcomes with PCI over MED in patients randomized to the <= 3 calendar days and <= 7 calendar days post-MI time windows. Earlier, times to randomization in OAT were associated with higher rates of the combined endpoint (adjusted HR 1.04/day: 99% CI 1.01-1.06; P < 0.001). The 48-month event rates for <= 3 days, <= 7 days post-MI enrolled patients were similar for PCI vs. MED for the combined and individual endpoints. There was no interaction between time to randomization defined as a continuous (P = 0.55) or categorical variable with a cut-point of 3 days (P = 0.98) or 7 days (P = 0.64) post-MI and treatment effect. Consistent with overall OAT findings, patients enrolled in the <= 3 day and <= 7 day post-MI time windows derived no benefit with PCI over MED with no interaction between time to randomization and treatment effect. Our findings do not support routine PCI of the occluded IRA in trial-eligible patients even in the earliest 24-72 h time window.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据