Skip Navigation LinksHome > January 2008 - Volume 51 - Issue 1 > Facilitated PCI: Rationale, Current Evidence, Open Questions...
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology:
doi: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e3181565e26
Review Article

Facilitated PCI: Rationale, Current Evidence, Open Questions, and Future Directions

Zimarino, Marco MD, PhD; Sacchetta, Daniele MD; Renda, Giulia MD, PhD; De Caterina, Raffaele MD, PhD

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

From the Institute of Cardiology and Center of Excellence on Aging, “G. d'Annunzio” University, Chieti, Italy.

Received for publication March 3, 2007; accepted July 20, 2007.

The authors state that they have no financial interest in the products mentioned within this article.

Reprints: Marco Zimarino, MD, PhD, Institute of Cardiology “G. D'Annunzio” University - Chieti C/o Ospedale S. Camillo de Lellis Via Forlanini, 50 66100 Chieti, Italy (e-mail: m.zimarino@unich.it).

Collapse Box

Abstract

Both thrombolysis and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are validated therapies in the treatment of ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI). Primary PCI appears now to be more effective, provided the vessel patency is restored within 120 minutes. An approach combining the possibility of quickly starting a clot-dissolving medication with a subsequent PCI of the culprit lesion has therefore recently gained considerable interest.

Facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) refers to a pretreatment with any pharmacological agent allowing the achievement of some recanalization and possibly myocardial reperfusion, which might translate into an improved clinical outcome. Many drugs reduce the thrombus burden; however, the term “facilitated” is currently operatively restricted to glycoprotein GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors, thrombolytic drugs, and their combination.

Several earlier clinical trials tested the hypothesis that facilitated PCI in the setting of STEMI allows the achievement of a better myocardial reperfusion compared with primary PCI and that this benefit translates into an improved clinical outcome. However, after the first promising results, the recent ASSENT-4 trial has been prematurely interrupted because of higher in-hospital mortality in the group of patients who underwent full-dose tenecteplase followed by PCI compared with subjects undergoing primary PCI alone.

After a critical review of the current knowledge, and pending the completion of ongoing trials, no clear evidence currently exists on the benefit of any systemic pharmacological facilitation of PCI beyond the upfront administration of dual oral antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel.

While awaiting the results of a few other currently ongoing trials, facilitated PCI should now probably be restricted to the administration of glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors for patients at high risk of cardiovascular events and at low risk of bleeding when a more than 60-minute delay to primary PCI is anticipated. In patients having first medical contact within 3 hours, with an anticipated absolute delay to PCI of more than 90 minutes, thrombolysis can be safely recommended.

Back to Top | Article Outline

THE TIME FACTOR IN REPERFUSION THERAPY

The prognosis of patients with acute ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) is highly dependent on the effective and rapid restoration of blood flow in the infarct-related coronary artery and in the microcirculation.1 Both thrombolysis and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are validated therapies in the treatment of STEMI. Thrombolysis can be ubiquitously administered, and its use is independent of the underlying anatomy. Primary PCI achieves a higher rate of vessel patency and involves a lower occurrence of reocclusion and bleeding when compared to lysis,2,3 but it can be performed, when anatomy is suitable, only in tertiary referral centers, requiring a complex network organization to be widely effective. In patients admitted to the hospital with a duration of symptoms less than 12 hours, primary PCI is associated with lower 30-day mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke compared with fibrinolysis.2,4 Primary PCI is still more effective than thrombolysis when the patient needs to be transferred to a hospital with cath lab facilities, provided that the transfer time is <90 minutes and the vessel patency is restored within 120 minutes.4,5 Thrombolysis is less effective as time passes, whereas the efficacy of primary PCI, although also dependent on time,6 appears to be less time-dependent than thrombolysis.7 Indeed, the superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis has clinical relevance for a time interval between 3 and 12 hours after the onset of symptoms because of a greater myocardial preservation.8 Relative benefits of primary PCI versus thrombolysis seem negligible within 2 hours of symptom onset, once the gap between the time needed to start mechanical recanalization (as measured by the door-to-balloon time) and the time needed to start pharmacological recanalization (as measured by the door-to-needle time) exceeds 1 hour.9 Prehospital lysis, which would decrease the time to treatment by moving it outside of the hospital setting, is therefore a tempting option. In the Comparison of Angioplasty and Prehospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) trial, patients who received prehospital thrombolysis within 2 hours of symptom onset, with rescue PCI in case of lytic failure, showed a trend toward lower 30-day mortality (P = 0.06) when compared with subjects who underwent systematic primary PCI.10 However, it must be acknowledged that 26% of patients who received prehospital lysis underwent rescue PCI, and 70% underwent PCI by 30 days. Prehospital thrombolysis has not been implemented widely, is rarely used in clinical practice, and is scarcely reported in large-scale surveys,11 with the exception of some urban areas.12 This is probably due to the several logistic needs involved, mainly the training of paramedical personnel and the ability to transmit electrocardiograms (ECGs).

In a recent pooled analysis of randomized trials, primary PCI was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality relative to lysis, regardless of the treatment delay, even when the primary PCI-related delay was less than 35 minutes.7 Primary PCI is extremely effective in achieving coronary recanalization, but this is not synonymous with myocardial reperfusion. In patients with STEMI, a prolonged ischemic time is associated with impaired myocardial perfusion, larger infarct size, and higher 1-year mortality13; all efforts should therefore be made to shorten the ischemic time and to achieve a better myocardial perfusion to obtain myocardial salvage. Angiographic myocardial blush, which is an index of tissue reperfusion, was a more powerful predictor of prognosis than the sole achievement of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Ischemia (TIMI) grade-3 flow (an index of effective recanalization),14 and is therefore currently used as a proxy of myocardial perfusion.15

Back to Top | Article Outline

RATIONALE FOR ADJUNCTIVE THERAPY IN PRIMARY PCI

The importance of arriving in the cath lab with an infarct-related artery already open has been clearly documented; in-hospital survival and left ventricular ejection fraction are significantly higher in patients arriving with an open artery than in those in whom reperfusion already occurred after PCI.16 De Luca et al17 stratified a large cohort of patients undergoing primary PCI by applying the TIMI risk score (Table 1) and documented that the benefit deriving from arriving in the cath lab with an open artery is most evident in the high-risk subgroup.

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools

An approach combining the possibility of quickly starting a widely available and everywhere feasible clot-dissolving medication to promptly restore at least some myocardial blood flow with a subsequent more complete restoration of a widely open epicardial coronary artery lumen as achievable with PCI of the culprit lesion has therefore gained considerable recent interest.18,19 The concept of “facilitated” PCI is based on the premise that pretreatment with a drug potentially affecting the coronary thrombus and thereby permitting some recanalization and/or some reperfusion (thrombolytic drugs and/or glycoprotein GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors mostly) would improve myocardial salvage, decrease the thrombus burden, and reduce the occurrence of distal embolization that frequently occurs during primary PCI. Thrombus reduction would also “facilitate” PCI (making it literally easier) by allowing an easier passage of the guidewire and permitting the visualization of an angiographic roadmap otherwise often absent when the infarct-related artery is occluded, all advantages that would ultimately translate into an improved clinical outcome. A combined approach with a quickly started clot-dissolving drug (thrombolysis and/or GP-IIb-IIIa inhibition) followed by later PCI of the culprit lesion (lyse now, stent later),20 has therefore gained considerable interest in the recent past.

We deliberately elect here to avoid the term “pharmaco-invasive approach,” which has been sometimes used as a synonym of facilitated PCI and sometimes designates the combined use of drugs and PCI independent of the intention to perform either a PCI with the aim of salvaging myocardium (primary PCI) or to perform a later PCI.

The choice of the best pharmacological strategy for the facilitation of PCI is complex, with several logical candidates, including not only fibrinolytic drugs in either full or reduced dose and GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors alone or in combination with thrombolytics, but also other antiplatelet agents, unfractionated heparin, low-molecular weight heparins, and direct thrombin inhibitors,1 as well as drugs affecting the microcirculatory vasoreactivity, such as adenosine.21,22 While many currently used drugs (including heparins, aspirin, and clopidogrel) appear to reduce the thrombus burden and should therefore semantically be discussed in this context, such drugs have been implemented in the clinical practice of both thrombolysis alone and of primary PCI. This somewhat justifies the current restriction of the discussion to a much shorter list of drugs, essentially GP-IIb-IIIa antagonists and lytics, or their combination.

The administration of GP-IIb-IIIa antagonists alone, which only tackle the platelet component of the thrombus, is unable to consistently restore vessel patency because a 90-minute TIMI 3 grade flow was documented in less than one third of STEMI patients when abciximab was administered less than 6 hours from symptom onset.23,24 However abciximab,25 tirofiban,26 and eptifibatide27 have been variously shown to reduce thrombus burden and improve myocardial perfusion in the setting of primary PCI.

Conversely, thrombolytic agents alone restore myocardial TIMI 3 grade flow in about two thirds of cases.23 Thrombolytics act by targeting the fibrin mesh component of the thrombus, involving a much larger quantitative proportion of the red thrombus occurring in STEMI, but their use is associated with both heightened thrombin activity and platelet activation. Resistance to fibrinolysis is related to a reduction of both binding to fibrin of the plasminogen activator (PA) used, and to a reduction in the speed of lysis, mainly evident in platelet-rich areas.

The combined use of GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors and thrombolytic drugs facilitate the rate and the extent of fibrinolysis by primarily improving the rate of PA binding to fibrin and, as a consequence, the rate of lysis.28 However, in order to be clinically effective, the asset of a combined pharmacologic and interventional strategy should outweigh the excess of bleeding deriving from this approach.

Back to Top | Article Outline

COMPLETED TRIALS ATTEMPTING PRIMARY PCI FACILITATION

We reviewed published reports in English from January 2000 to August 2006 using the PubMed database and personal communication with experts in the field. We used the keywords “facilitated angioplasty” and “facilitated PCI.” We also searched through the references of all the studies found from such sources to locate additional references that might be useful for the purpose.

The TIMI-14 trial23 was the first study testing the hypothesis that GP-IIb-IIIa inhibition could be a safe and effective adjunctive to thrombolysis. The study was designed with a dose-finding phase and a dose-confirmation phase, but it showed an unacceptable (10%) rate of major bleeding. In the dose-confirmation phase, the optimal 90-minute TIMI 3 flow rate was achieved with the half-dose (50 mg) alteplase plus abciximab strategy in 77% of cases, significantly more than in the half-dose alteplase-only group (62%; P < 0.02). The safety and effectiveness of a strategy of early primary PCI facilitated by a combination of abciximab and reduced-dose (5 U double bolus) reteplase were then tested in a substudy of the Strategies for Patency Enhancement in the Emergency Department (SPEED) trial, otherwise known as the Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded coronary arteries (GUSTO) pilot study.29

In the past 5 years, a series of trials have stemmed from these early experiences. They have used clinical and/or angiographic end points for the identification of the “optimal” pharmacologic facilitating strategy. Table 2 summarizes already published large-scale trials that randomized patients to a treatment with lytics and/or GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors in the setting of primary PCI for STEMI. In a recent meta-analysis of 17 randomized published and unpublished controlled trials comparing facilitated and primary PCI in STEMI, Keeley et al showed that, despite a 2-fold higher initial TIMI grade 3 flow, the facilitated strategy did not result in better clinical outcomes than primary PCI.30 Most of the trials analyzed were underpowered to detect clinical outcomes. The negative results were mainly driven by the largest of these trials, the Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Treatment Strategy with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (ASSENT-4 PCI) trial,31 which randomized patients with STEMI of less than 6-hour duration to either PCI or PCI preceded by full-dose tenecteplase. This study was halted after enrolling less than half the anticipated number of patients because of a higher in-hospital mortality in the facilitated group (6% versus 3%, P = 0.01). Compared with patients assigned to primary PCI, facilitated PCI showed more strokes (1.8% versus 0%, P < 0.001) and reinfarctions (6% versus 4%, P < 0.05). Several reasons have been advocated to explain the worse clinical outcome of patients receiving tenecteplase in this study.

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools

First, suboptimal antithrombotic adjunctive therapy has been suggested. The absence of a continuous heparin infusion after the bolus administration coupled with a restrictive use of GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors might have contributed to an excess of early thrombotic complications, mitigating the benefits of earlier reperfusion by tenecteplase.

Second, the bleeding risk, which became far from negligible, is another explanation. Stroke, major non-cerebral bleedings, and hemorrhagic transformation of the infarcted myocardium all contributed to the increased mortality.

Third, the short time interval between the tenecteplase bolus and primary PCI is yet another explanation. Assuming a delay of about 45 to 60 min between the injection of lytics and the recanalization of the infarct-related vessel, the time gain for reperfusion with the drug was probably not relevant in many patients undergoing subsequent primary PCI. This last hypothesis was corroborated by the reduced mortality occurring with facilitated PCI in the case of patients transported by ambulance compared with patients treated in tertiary centers, and by the findings of 2 recently published studies: the Which Early ST-elevation myocardial infarction Therapy (WEST)32 and the Grupo de Analisis de la Cardiopatıa Isquemica Aguda (GRACIA)-2 trials.33

In the WEST trial, 304 patients were randomized to tenecteplase, tenecteplase and mandatory rescue, routine PCI within 24 hours, or primary PCI. Among patients receiving tenecteplase and usual care, the incidence of 30-day mortality and recurrent MI was 13%, significantly higher than in subjects undergoing primary PCI (4%, P = 0.021). Patients allocated to the arm with tenecteplase and mandatory invasive management less than 24 hours showed a 6.7% 30-day death or recurrent MI rate, slightly higher but nonsignificantly different from primary PCI. The findings of the WEST were complementary to the ASSENT-4 trial, as patients in the facilitated PCI arm underwent PCI early but not immediately after lysis. Interestingly, mortality was lowest and very similar in the 2 groups undergoing intervention: lytic-facilitated PCI and primary PCI (1%), although the small size of the study precludes any serious direct comparison of mortality between strategies.

Therefore, the combination of lytics with interventional treatment seemed feasible when a slightly prolonged time interval occurred between lytics administration and PCI.

This concept was lately reinforced by the GRACIA-2 trial,33 which compared the outcomes of 212 patients randomized to full tenecteplase followed by stent-PCI within 3 to 12 hours of randomization or to undergo primary stenting with abciximab within 3 hours. Both groups were similar as to infarct size, left ventricular function at 6 weeks, major bleedings and 6-month cumulative incidence of death, reinfarction, disabling stroke, or repeat coronary revascularization, suggesting that the time window between fibrinolysis and PCI can be safely widened up to 6 hours after the first medical contact.

Treatment delay between the pharmacologic intervention and primary PCI is of utmost relevance. The magnitude of the beneficial drug effect seems to be directly related to the rapidity of drug administration. Montalescot et al analyzed data from 6 trials enrolling STEMI patients treated with abciximab or tirofiban in combination with primary PCI and documented that early drug administration at the point of initial contact (emergency department or ambulance) was associated with a higher TIMI 3 flow grade before primary PCI (20%) and a trend to lower mortality (3.4%) when compared to a late administration in the cath lab (12%, P < 0.001 and 4.7%, P = 0.42, respectively).34 The benefit deriving from GP-IIb-IIIa inhibition seems to be at its maximum when the drug is administered early, as suggested in the Abciximab before Direct angioplasty and stenting in Myocardial Infarction Regarding Acute and Long-term follow-up (ADMIRAL)35 trial, and it tends to wane out when the drug is administered immediately before the primary PCI, as occurred in the Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (CADILLAC) study.36

The additive or synergistic potential of a combination therapy with GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors and half-dose lytics failed, however, to translate into any benefit in 2 small-scale trials: the ADdressing the Value of facilitated ANgioplasty after Combination therapy or Eptifibatide monotherapy in acute Myocardial Infarction (ADVANCE-MI)37 and the Bavarian Reperfusion AlternatiVes Evaluation (BRAVE).38 Excess bleeding with combined drug facilitation flawed initial enthusiasms in both studies. These findings were further confirmed in a recent meta-analysis that identified 4 clinical trials by randomizing patients to combination therapy before primary PCI or GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitor alone during primary PCI. Combination therapy with reduced-dose lytics and GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors was associated with a 2-fold increase in TIMI-3 flow upon arrival to the cath-lab, an increased major bleeding rate, and similar 30-day mortality and reinfarction rate as compared to primary PCI done with GP IIb-IIIa inhibitor alone.39

The American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines for the management of STEMI40 currently designate facilitated PCI as a class IIb recommendation with level of evidence B, stating, “Facilitated PCI might be performed as a reperfusion strategy in higher-risk patients when PCI is not immediately available and bleeding risk is low.” The guidelines for PCI of the European Society of Cardiology Task Force are even more restrictive, as they stated, “there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI.”8

Back to Top | Article Outline

DOUBTS AND UNCERTAINTIES FROM ONGOING TRIALS

Several ongoing trials are now testing various facilitation strategies before primary PCI. It is remarkable, to the dismay of clinical science, that most such trials will not include an arm of primary PCI without facilitation, something that appears somewhat necessary considering the recent disappointing results of ASSENT-4.31 Most such trials are experiencing recruitment problems, which might preclude their actual completion.

The previously mentioned ADVANCE-MI trial37 has randomized STEMI patients to eptifibatide + half-dose tenecteplase or eptifibatide alone before primary PCI. The study was planned to enroll 5640 STEMI patients to provide 85% power with a 2-sided α = 0.05 to detect a 2.6% absolute reduction in the primary endpoint of death or the occurrence of new/worsening severe heart failure within 30 days with reduced-dose tenecteplase + eptifibatide, assuming an event rate of 13% in the eptifibatide group. The trial has been prematurely stopped for a low recruitment rate after only 149 patients had been enrolled at 30 sites.

The Facilitated Intervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events (FINESSE) study is enrolling STEMI patients in a 3-arm comparison of primary PCI with abciximab administered in the Emergency Department versus abciximab initiated in the cath lab versus abciximab + half-dose reteplase administered in the emergency department.41 The trial has been designed to answer the questions (1) whether an early “upstream” abciximab administration would provide a clinical benefit over a “downstream” use, after the meta-analysis of Montalescot identified only an increase in TIMI flow34 and (2) to unveil the potential benefit of the combination therapy, already unsuccessfully tested in the BRAVE trial.42 Unfortunately a “pure” primary PCI arm has not been included, as the trial does not offer alternatives to abciximab.

In the Combined Abciximab RE-teplase Stent Study in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CARESS in AMI) trial, all patients will receive full-dose abciximab and half-dose reteplase, and will undergo randomization to a conservative strategy with rescue or primary PCI.43

The Randomized Study on Facilitated Angioplasty with Tirofiban or Abciximab (FATA)44 will be the first large-scale independent study to make a direct comparison between 2 GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitors before primary PCI. To test the hypothesis that tirofiban is equivalent to abciximab for facilitating primary PCI, ST segment resolution 90 minutes after opening of the infarct-related artery will be used as the primary endpoint. As of May 2007, 600 of the planned 700 patients have been randomized.

The Trial of Routine Angioplasty and Stenting After Fibrinolysis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI)45 trial will be performed in a rural area in Canada without cardiac catheterization facilities and will test the safety and efficacy of routine transfer for PCI immediately after thrombolysis. It will randomize 1200 patients, following tenecteplase, to facilitated PCI or a “conservative” approach, with provisional rescue PCI. The primary endpoint will be the composite of death, reinfarction, recurrent ischemia, heart failure, and shock at 30 days.

Back to Top | Article Outline

THE CLOPIDOGREL ISSUE

The ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines46 define facilitated PCI as “a strategy of planned immediate PCI after an initial pharmacological regimen such as a full dose fibrinolytic, a half-dose fibrinolytic, a GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitor, or a combination of reduced-dose fibrinolytic therapy and a platelet GP-IIb-IIIa inhibitor.” The ESC guidelines8 refer to facilitated PCI as “planned intervention within 12 hours after onset of symptoms, soon after clot-dissolving medication to bridge the delay between first medical contact and primary PCI.” However, there is no a priori reason not to include other antithrombotic treatments that may either prompt recanalization of thrombotic occlusion or reduce reocclusion.

During the planning of most studies, dual oral antiplatelet therapy (adding clopidogrel to aspirin) has become a mainstay of pretreatment before coronary intervention in a broad clinical scenario.

In patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI) undergoing PCI, adding 300 mg of clopidogrel to standard aspirin therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction.47 In NSTEMI patients with elevated troponin levels undergoing PCI, the benefit of adjunctive GP-IIb-IIIa inhibition is still evident; even on top of optimal clopidogrel pretreatment (600 mg), abciximab reduced the risk of 30-day death or MI.42 Recently, the documented efficacy of adjunctive clopidogrel therapy has been extended to STEMI patients. In a wide range of patients enrolled in the ClOpidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial (COMMIT), adding 75 mg of clopidogrel daily to aspirin and other standard treatments (fibrinolytic therapy in about 50% of cases) produced a reduction of early death without excessive bleeding.48 In the Clopidogrel as Adjunctive Reperfusion Therapy (CLARITY)-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 28,49 the addition of clopidogrel reduced the combined endpoint of an occluded infarct-related artery (TIMI flow grade 0 or 1), in-hospital death, or recurrent MI among patients who received aspirin and a standard fibrinolytic regimens. The reduction in cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke obtained with clopidogrel pretreatment was also consistent also among those patients who underwent PCI within 8 days of the admission.50 However, it appears more likely that clopidogrel improves clinical outcomes by maintaining late coronary patency and preventing reocclusion of open arteries rather than by facilitating early reperfusion. This speculation stemmed from a subanalysis of a cohort of CLARITY-TIMI 28 patients in ST-segment resolution (an early noninvasive marker of coronary reperfusion) was analyzed at 90 and 180 minutes after randomization51; when patients were stratified according to ST-segment resolution category, clopidogrel administration was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of an in-hospital death or MI in patients who achieved partial (OR, 0.30; P = 0.003) or complete ST-segment resolution at 90 min (OR, 0.49; P = 0.056), whereas clinical benefit was not apparent in patients who had no ST-segment resolution.

On the basis of the present knowledge, clopidogrel is de facto a way to facilitate primary PCI and will be extensively used in all STEMI patients. It will be quite hard, therefore, to comment on the results of any trial conducted without clopidogrel pretreatment; the adjunctive benefit of other pharmacological facilitation (lytics and/or GP-IIb-IIIa) should be clearly documented without excessive risk of bleeding on top of an optimum upfront oral antiplatelet therapy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CURRENT EVIDENCE

Primary PCI remains the first treatment of choice among STEMI patients, and everybody should ensure the shortest possible time from first medical contact to PCI. However, in areas without easy access to primary PCI, the suggested strategy must take into account the anticipated time delay to PCI.8,40

An algorithm for patient management is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1
Figure 1
Image Tools

The time issue remains crucial. While we are spending resources in the experimentation of expensive and potentially harmful therapeutic additional strategies, an understanding of the interplay between clinical events and the organizational context in which they occur is particularly in need of further development. Here the lessons from approaches used in hospitals that have achieved notable improvements in their door-to-balloon times52,53 should be learned by all, possibly more than focusing on new trials of drug combinations.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt reperfusion is essential for patients with STEMI. Compared with thrombolysis and all other variables being equal, primary PCI achieves a better myocardial reperfusion, but its efficacy is hindered by transportation delay. A combined approach with a quickly started clot-dissolving drug (thrombolysis and/or GP-IIb-IIIa inhibition) followed by later PCI of the culprit lesion (lyse now, stent later)20 has therefore considerable attractiveness. “Facilitated” primary PCI could achieve some early recanalization as well as reduce thrombus burden and distal embolization. However, the translation of such theoretical benefits into clinical practice is complex, depending on the delicate balance between perfusion advantages and the risk of excess bleeding.

Theoretically, patients with a high risk of major cardiovascular events and a low bleeding risk (eg, the younger) who present very early (eg, within 60 to 90 min from symptom onset) and in whom a more than 2-hour delay to primary PCI is anticipated (eg, a prolonged inter-hospital transfer) are the best candidates to benefit from GP-IIb-IIIa inhibition (abciximab likely better than other drugs of this category) initiated at the time of initial contact.

Thrombolytic therapy should now be discouraged in patients intended to be also promptly treated with PCI, but it might remain an option for time intervals substantially longer than 90 min.

Investigators should propose genuine trials and try to be as independent as possible from the marketing interests of pharmaceutical companies, testing head-to-head alternative strategies for primary PCI facilitation and still including an arm of primary PCI without facilitation, which is the current benchmark for STEMI. Trials should also still aim at identifying which delay to primary PCI is acceptable before administering thrombolytic therapy.

Systematic internal analyses to monitor specific hospital performances in terms of time delays, which are likely to vary from place to place and may influence decision strategies, should also be developed.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Gersh BJ, Stone GW, White HD, et al. Pharmacological facilitation of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: is the slope of the curve the shape of the future? JAMA. 2005;293:979-986.

2. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet. 2003;361:13-20.

3. Mehta RH, Granger CB, Alexander KP, et al. Reperfusion strategies for acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: benefits and risks. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:471-478.

4. Dalby M, Bouzamondo A, Lechat P, et al. Transfer for primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2003;108:1809-1814.

5. Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:733-742.

6. Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Migliorini A, et al. Relation of time to treatment and mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol. 2002;89:1248-1252.

7. Boersma E. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:779-788.

8. Silber S, Albertsson P, Aviles FF, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:804-847.

9. Nallamothu BK, Bates ER. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: is timing (almost) everything? Am J Cardiol. 2003;92:824-826.

10. Bonnefoy E, Lapostolle F, Leizorovicz A, et al. Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study. Lancet. 2002;360:825-829.

11. Di Chiara A, Chiarella F, Savonitto S, et al. Epidemiology of acute myocardial infarction in the Italian CCU network: the BLITZ study. Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1616-1629.

12. Danchin N, Blanchard D, Steg PG, et al. Impact of prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction on 1-year outcome: results from the French Nationwide USIC 2000 Registry. Circulation. 2004;110:1909-1915.

13. Taylor AJ, Al-Saadi N, Abdel-Aty H, et al. Detection of acutely impaired microvascular reperfusion after infarct angioplasty with magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 2004;109:2080-2085.

14. Gibson CM, Cannon CP, Murphy SA, et al. Relationship of TIMI myocardial perfusion grade to mortality after administration of thrombolytic drugs. Circulation. 2000;101:125-130.

15. De Luca G, van't Hof AW, de Boer MJ, et al. Time-to-treatment significantly affects the extent of ST-segment resolution and myocardial blush in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated by primary angioplasty. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:1009-1013.

16. Ishihara M, Inoue I, Kawagoe T, et al. Impact of spontaneous anterograde flow of the infarct artery on left ventricular function in patients with a first anterior wall acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:5-9.

17. De Luca G, Ernst N, Zijlstra F, et al. Preprocedural TIMI flow and mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated by primary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:1363-1367.

18. Dauerman HL, Sobel BE. Synergistic treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with pharmacoinvasive recanalization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:646-651.

19. Borden WB, Faxon DP. Facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1120-1128.

20. Verheugt FW. Lyse now, stent later: the grace of GRACIA. Lancet. 2004;364:1014-1015.

21. Marzilli M, Orsini E, Marraccini P, et al. Beneficial effects of intracoronary adenosine as an adjunct to primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2000;101:2154-2159.

22. Ross AM, Gibbons RJ, Stone GW, et al. A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMISTAD-II). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:1775-1780.

23. Antman EM, Giugliano RP, Gibson CM, et al. Abciximab facilitates the rate and extent of thrombolysis: results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 14 trial. The TIMI 14 Investigators. Circulation. 1999;99:2720-2732.

24. van den Merkhof LF, Zijlstra F, Olsson H, et al. Abciximab in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction eligible for primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. Results of the Glycoprotein Receptor Antagonist Patency Evaluation (GRAPE) pilot study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1528-1532.

25. Gyongyosi M, Domanovits H, Benzer W, et al. Use of abciximab prior to primary angioplasty in STEMI results in early recanalization of the infarct-related artery and improved myocardial tissue reperfusion - results of the Austrian multi-centre randomized ReoPro-BRIDGING Study. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:2125-2133.

26. Lee DP, Herity NA, Hiatt BL, et al. Adjunctive platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibition with tirofiban before primary angioplasty improves angiographic outcomes: results of the TIrofiban Given in the Emergency Room before Primary Angioplasty (TIGER-PA) pilot trial. Circulation. 2003;107:1497-1501.

27. Zeymer U, Zahn R, Schiele R, et al. Early eptifibatide improves TIMI 3 patency before primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized integrilin in acute myocardial infarction (INTAMI) pilot trial. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:1971-1977.

28. Collet JP, Montalescot G, Lesty C, et al. A structural and dynamic investigation of the facilitating effect of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in dissolving platelet-rich clots. Circ Res. 2002;90:428-434.

29. Herrmann HC, Moliterno DJ, Ohman EM, et al. Facilitation of early percutaneous coronary intervention after reteplase with or without abciximab in acute myocardial infarction: results from the SPEED (GUSTO-4 Pilot) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1489-1496.

30. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials. Lancet. 2006;367:579-588.

31. Primary versus tenecteplase-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (ASSENT-4 PCI): randomised trial. Lancet. 2006;367:569-578.

32. Armstrong PW. A comparison of pharmacologic therapy with/without timely coronary intervention vs. primary percutaneous intervention early after ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the WEST (Which Early ST-elevation myocardial infarction Therapy) study. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:1530-1538.

33. Fernandez-Aviles F, Alonso JJ, Pena G, et al. Primary angioplasty vs. early routine post-fibrinolysis angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation: the GRACIA-2 non-inferiority, randomized, controlled trial. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:949-960.

34. Montalescot G, Borentain M, Payot L, et al. Early vs late administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in primary percutaneous coronary intervention of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292:362-366.

35. Montalescot G, Barragan P, Wittenberg O, et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition with coronary stenting for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1895-1903.

36. Stone GW, Grines CL, Cox DA, et al. Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:957-966.

37. Facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results from the prematurely terminated ADdressing the Value of facilitated ANgioplasty after Combination therapy or Eptifibatide monotherapy in acute Myocardial Infarction (ADVANCE MI) trial. Am Heart J. 2005;150:116-122.

38. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Schlotterbeck K, et al. Early administration of reteplase plus abciximab vs abciximab alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction referred for percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:947-954.

39. Sinno MC, Khanal S, Al-Mallah MH, et al. The efficacy and safety of combination glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors and reduced-dose thrombolytic therapy-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Am Heart J. 2007;153:579-586.

40. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction). Circulation. 2004;110:e82-292.

41. Ellis SG, Armstrong P, Betriu A, et al. Facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention: design and rationale of the Facilitated Intervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events (FINESSE) trial. Am Heart J. 2004;147:E16.

42. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Neumann FJ, et al. Abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after clopidogrel pretreatment: the ISAR-REACT 2 randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;295:1531-1538.

43. Di Mario C, Bolognese L, Maillard L, et al. Combined Abciximab REteplase Stent Study in acute myocardial infarction (CARESS in AMI). Am Heart J. 2004;148:378-385.

44. Marzocchi A. Randomized Study on Facilitated Angioplasty With Tirofiban or Abciximab (FATA). Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. NCT00383136.

45. Cantor WJ. Trial of Routine Angioplasty and Stenting After Fibrinolysis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI). Available at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. NCT00164190.

46. Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention-Summary Article: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47:216-235.

47. Mehta SR, Yusuf S, Peters RJ, et al. Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study. Lancet. 2001;358:527-533.

48. Chen ZM, Jiang LX, Chen YP, et al. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:1607-1621.

49. Sabatine MS, Cannon CP, Gibson CM, et al. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin and fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1179-1189.

50. Sabatine MS, Cannon CP, Gibson CM, et al. Effect of clopidogrel pretreatment before percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytics: the PCI-CLARITY study. JAMA. 2005;294:1224-1232.

51. Scirica BM, Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, et al. The role of clopidogrel in early and sustained arterial patency after fibrinolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the ECG CLARITY-TIMI 28 Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:37-42.

52. Bradley EH, Curry LA, Webster TR, et al. Achieving rapid door-to-balloon times: how top hospitals improve complex clinical systems. Circulation. 2006;113:1079-1085.

53. Bradley EH, Herrin J, Wang Y, et al. Strategies for reducing the door-to-balloon time in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2308-2320.

54. Morrow DA, Antman EM, Charlesworth A, et al. TIMI risk score for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A convenient, bedside, clinical score for risk assessment at presentation: An intravenous nPA for treatment of infarcting myocardium early II trial substudy. Circulation. 2000;102:2031-2037.

55. Ross AM, Coyne KS, Reiner JS, et al. A randomized trial comparing primary angioplasty with a strategy of short-acting thrombolysis and immediate planned rescue angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: the PACT trial. PACT investigators. Plasminogen-activator Angioplasty Compatibility Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;34:1954-1962.

56. Widimsky P, Groch L, Zelizko M, et al. Multicentre randomized trial comparing transport to primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis vs combined strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to a community hospital without a catheterization laboratory. The PRAGUE study. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:823-831.

57. Fernandez-Aviles F, Alonso JJ, Castro-Beiras A, et al. Routine invasive strategy within 24 hours of thrombolysis versus ischaemia-guided conservative approach for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (GRACIA-1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:1045-1053.

58. van't Hof AW, Ernst N, de Boer MJ, et al. Facilitation of primary coronary angioplasty by early start of a glycoprotein 2b/3a inhibitor:results of the ongoing tirofiban in myocardial infarction evaluation (On-TIME) trial. Eur Heart J. 2004;25:837-846.

59. Antoniucci D, Migliorini A, Parodi G, et al. Abciximab-supported infarct artery stent implantation for acute myocardial infarction and long-term survival: a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial comparing infarct artery stenting plus abciximab with stenting alone. Circulation. 2004;109:1704-1706.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 3 time(s).

American Journal of Cardiology
The Clinical Dilemma of Positive Results of High-Sensitive Troponin Assays
Lippi, G; Montagnana, M; Guidi, GC
American Journal of Cardiology, 103(9): 1332.
10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.02.037
CrossRef
European Heart Journal Supplements
Long-term treatment strategies for atherothrombotic disease: do platelets define the course?
Zimarino, M; De Caterina, R
European Heart Journal Supplements, 10(): 8-13.
10.1093/eurheartj/sun041
CrossRef
European Journal of Emergency Medicine
Lowering mortality in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: key prehospital and emergency room treatment strategies
Goldstein, P; Lapostolle, F; Steg, G; Danchin, N; Assez, N; Montalescot, G; Charpentier, S; Wiel, E; Juliard, JM
European Journal of Emergency Medicine, 16(5): 244-255.
10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328329794e
PDF (244) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline
Keywords:

STEMI; primary PCI; glycoprotein IIb-IIIa; thrombolytics

© 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Follow Us!

Login

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.