Preventive Care in Nursing and Midwifery Journal
Sun, Apr 20, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 14, Issue 4 (11-2024)
PCNM 2024, 14(4): 11-21 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.ZUMS.REC.1400.496
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Gholamian E, Hanifi N, Shiri Qidari P. Treatment selection factors and outcome comparison in acute myocardial infarction. PCNM 2024; 14 (4) :11-21
URL: http://nmcjournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-931-en.html
URL: http://nmcjournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-931-en.html
Department of Emergency and Critical Care, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran , nasrinhanifi@zums.ac.ir
Abstract: (266 Views)
Background: The reopening of occluded arteries in myocardial infarction can be achieved through invasive and non-invasive methods.
Objectives: This study aimed to determine treatment factors and outcomes comparison in acute myocardial infarction patients.
Methods: This cross-sectional and retrospective study examined the hospitalization data of 252 myocardial infarction patients referred to Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital from April 2021 to March 2022. The patient's demographic and clinical data, factors influencing treatment intervention selection, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test, multiple logistic regression analysis, and ANOVA in SPSS v.22 software.
Results: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) comprised 45.6% of treatments, with thrombolytic therapy comprising 35.3%. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the availability of a 24/7 operational catheterization lab and immediate access to an on-call interventional cardiologist were significant predictors of treatment selection (P< 0.05).
(P<0.05). The success rate of PPCI was 87.2% and thrombolytic therapy was 58.9%. Outcomes such as hospitalization length, analgesia dose, rehospitalization, and mortality rate over a year showed no significant statistical difference between the PPCI and thrombolytic groups (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Access to equipment and specialized manpower is essential for PPCI. There were no complications or clinical outcomes that differed between patients treated with PPCI and thrombolytic therapy. Thrombolytic therapy remains a viable alternative to PPCI when timely intervention is not feasible.
Objectives: This study aimed to determine treatment factors and outcomes comparison in acute myocardial infarction patients.
Methods: This cross-sectional and retrospective study examined the hospitalization data of 252 myocardial infarction patients referred to Ayatollah Mousavi Hospital from April 2021 to March 2022. The patient's demographic and clinical data, factors influencing treatment intervention selection, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test, multiple logistic regression analysis, and ANOVA in SPSS v.22 software.
Results: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) comprised 45.6% of treatments, with thrombolytic therapy comprising 35.3%. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the availability of a 24/7 operational catheterization lab and immediate access to an on-call interventional cardiologist were significant predictors of treatment selection (P< 0.05).
(P<0.05). The success rate of PPCI was 87.2% and thrombolytic therapy was 58.9%. Outcomes such as hospitalization length, analgesia dose, rehospitalization, and mortality rate over a year showed no significant statistical difference between the PPCI and thrombolytic groups (P>0.05).
Conclusion: Access to equipment and specialized manpower is essential for PPCI. There were no complications or clinical outcomes that differed between patients treated with PPCI and thrombolytic therapy. Thrombolytic therapy remains a viable alternative to PPCI when timely intervention is not feasible.
Type of Study: Orginal research |
Subject:
Nursing
Received: 2024/09/16 | Accepted: 2025/01/1 | Published: 2024/11/28
Received: 2024/09/16 | Accepted: 2025/01/1 | Published: 2024/11/28
References
1. 1. Gupta A, Wang Y, Spertus JA, Geda M, Lorenze N, Nkonde-Price C, et al. Trends in acute myocardial infarction in young patients and differences by sex and race, 2001 to 2010. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014;64(4):337-45.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.054 [Crossref]
2. Sharif Nia H CY, Froelicher ES, Pahlevan Sharif S, Yaghoobzadeh A, Jafari A, Goudarzian AH, Pourkia R, Haghdoost AA, Arefinia F, Nazari R. Weather fluctuations: predictive factors in the prevalence of acute coronary syndrome. Health Promotion Perspectives. 2019;9(2):123-30.
https://doi.org/10.15171/hpp.2019.17 [Crossref]
3. Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, Addolorato G, Ammirati E, Baddour LM, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, 1990-2019. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020;76(25):2982-3021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.010 [Crossref]
4. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The task force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2018;39(2):119-77. Epub 2017/09/10.
https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393 [Crossref]
5. Bhatnagar P, Wickramasinghe K, Williams J, Rayner M, Townsend N. The epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in the UK 2014. British Medical Journal. 2015;101(15):1182-9. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2015-307516 [Crossref]
6. Jayaraj JC, Davatyan K, Subramanian S, Priya J. Epidemiology of myocardial Infarction. 2019. In: Myocardial Infarction [Internet]. London, United Kingdom: IntechOpen. 1st et. [P. 9-19]. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74768. [Crossref]
7. Véronique L. Roger MD M. Epidemiology of myocardial infarction. Medical Clinics of North America. 2007;91(4):537-52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2007.03.007 [Crossref]
8. Ahmadi A, Sajjadi H, Etemad K, Khaledifar A, Mobasherii M. Epidemiological characteristics and determinants of mortality in acute coronary syndrome in Iran. International Journal of Cardiovascular Practice. 2015;25(124):1-9. http://jmums.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-5688-fa.html
9. Sharif Nia H, Gorgulu O, Pahlevan Sharif S, Froelicher ES, Haghdoost AA, Golshani S, et al. Prevalence of acute myocardial infarction and changing meteorological conditions in Iran: Fuzzy clustering approach. Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2020;49(5):923-30. Epub 2020/09/22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7475622/.
10. Mohammadpour R-A, Khanali F, Yazdani J, Mahmoodi M, Khosravi A. Estimating potential gain in life expectancy by eliminating causes of death in Iran, 2010. Mazandaran University Medical Sciences. 2014;24(112):89-95. http://jmums.mazums.ac.ir/article-1-2693-en.html.
11. Tamis‐Holland JE, O'Gara P. Highlights from the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the management of ST‐elevation myocardial infarction and beyond. Clinical Cardiology. 2014;37(4):252-9.
https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.22258 [Crossref]
12. Theodoridis PG, Davos CH, Dodos I, Iatrou N, Potouridis A, Pappas GM, et al. Thrombolysis in acute lower limb ischemia: review of the current literature. Annals of Vascular Surgery. 2018;52:255-62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2018.02.030 [Crossref]
13. Daei M, Karimi Rad M, Khalaja MJJQUMS. Reasons for not receiving thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to Bu-Ali Sina Hospital in Qazvin (2013-14). Journal of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences. 2017;21(1):79-83. https://core.ac.uk/reader/95377030.
14. Fazel R, Joseph TI, Sankardas MA, Pinto DS, Yeh RW, Kumbhani DJ, et al. Comparison of reperfusion strategies for ST‐Segment-Elevation myocardial infarction: A multivariate network meta‐analysis. Journal of American Heart Association. 2020;9(12):e015186. https://doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015186. [Crossref]
15. Lindsey ML, Brás LEdC, DeLeon-Pennell KY, Frangogiannis NG, Halade GV, O'Meara CC, et al. Reperfused vs. nonreperfused myocardial infarction: when to use which model. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 2021;321(1):H208-H13.
https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00234.2021 [Crossref]
16. Martínez-Sánchez C, Arias-Mendoza A, González-Pacheco H, Araiza-Garaygordobil D, Marroquín-Donday LA, Padilla-Ibarra J, et al. Reperfusion therapy of myocardial infarction in Mexico: A challenge for modern cardiology. Archivos de Cardiologia de Mexico. 2017;87(2):144-50. Epub 2017/02/09.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acmx.2016.12.007 [Crossref]
17. Pu J, Ding S, Ge H, Han Y, Guo J, Lin R, et al. Efficacy and safety of a pharmaco-invasive strategy with half-dose alteplase versus primary angioplasty in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation Journal. 2017;136(16):1462-73.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030582 [Crossref]
18. Llevadot J, Giugliano RP, Antman EM. Bolus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001;286(4):442-9. https://10.1001/jama.286.4.442. [Crossref]
19. Zhao X, Yang X, Gao C, Chu Y, Yang L, Tian L, et al. Improved survival of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction 3-6 hours after symptom onset is associated with inter-hospital transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at a large regional ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) program vs. in-hospital thrombolysis in a community hospital. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental Clinical Research. 2017;23:1055-63.
https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.902466 [Crossref]
20. Izadpanah P, Falahati F, Mokhtari AM, Hosseinpour F, Faham B, Sheidaee R, et al. The survival rate of patients with ST-Segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health. 2020;8(3):770-4.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2020.01.017 [Crossref]
21. Frampton J, Devries JT, Welch TD, Gersh BJJCpic. Modern management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Current Problems in Cardiology. 2020;45(3):100393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2018.08.005 [Crossref]
22. Kastrati A, Coughlan J, Ndrepepa GJJotACoC. Primary PCI, late presenting STEMI, and the limits of time. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2021;78(13):1306-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.08.001 [Crossref]
23. Group LS. Late assessment of thrombolytic efficacy (LATE) study with alteplase 6-24 hours after onset of acute myocardial infarction. The Lancet. 1993;342(8874):759-66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)91538-W [Crossref]
24. Uemura S, Okamoto H, Nakai M, Nishimura K, Miyamoto Y, Yasuda S, et al. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute myocardial Infarction An analysis from a Japanese nationwide claim-based database. Circulation Journal. 2019;83(6):1229-38.
https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-19-0004 [Crossref]
25. Avezum A, Makdisse M, Spencer F, Gore JM, Fox KA, Montalescot G, et al. Impact of age on management and outcome of acute coronary syndrome: observations from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). American Heart Journal. 2005;149(1):67-73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.06.003 [Crossref]
26. Skolnick AH, Alexander KP, Chen AY, Roe MT, Pollack CV, Ohman EM, et al. Characteristics, management, and outcomes of 5,557 patients age≥ 90 years with acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE initiative. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2007;49(17):1790-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.01.066 [Crossref]
27. O'gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey Jr DE, Chung MK, De Lemos JA, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation Journal. 2013;127(4):529-55.
https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e3182742c84 [Crossref]
28. Hashmi KA, Adnan F, Ahmed O, Yaqeen SR, Ali J, Irfan M, et al. Risk assessment of patients after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction by Killip classification: an institutional experience. Cureus. 2020;12(12). Epub 2020/12/21.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.12209 [Crossref]
29. Frampton J, Devries JT, Welch TD, Gersh BJ. Modern management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Current Problems in Cardiology. 2020;45(3):100393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2018.08.005 [Crossref]
30. Hanifi N, Rezaee E, Rohani M. Time-to-treatment and its association with complications and mortality rate in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A prospective cohort study. Journal of Emergency Nursing. 2021;47(2):288-98.e4. Epub 2020/08/04.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2020.05.013 [Crossref]
31. Alimohammadzadeh K, Sadeghi R, Maher A, Kazemi MK. Short-term cost-effectiveness of reteplase versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute STEMI a tertiary hospital in Iran. International Journal of Cardiovascular Practice. 2017;2(3):65-9.
https://doi.org/10.21859/ijcp-020305 [Crossref]
32. Daei M, Karimi Rad M, Khalaja M. Reasons for not receiving thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to Bu-Ali Sina Hospital in Qazvin (2013-14). Journal of Qazvin University of Medical Sciences. 2017;21(1):79-83. https://core.ac.uk/reader/95377030.
33. Falsoleiman H, Fatehi G, Dehghani M, Shakeri M, Bayani B, Ahmadi M, et al. Clinical outcome, and survival between primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolysis in patients older than 60 years with acute myocardial infarction. Heart Views. 2012;13(4):129-31.
https://doi.org/10.4103/1995-705X.105728 [Crossref]
34. Kocayigit I, Yaylaci S, Osken A, Aydın E, Sahinkus S, Can Y, et al. Comparison of effects of thrombolytic therapy and primary percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction on in-hospital, six-month, and one-year mortality. Archives of Medical Sciences-Atherosclerotic Diseases. 2019;4:e82-e8. Epub 2019/06/19.
https://doi.org/10.5114/amsad.2019.85378 [Crossref]
35. Soleimani M, Soleimani A, Roohafza H, Sarrafzadegan N, Taheri M, Yadegarfar G, et al. The comparison of procedural and clinical outcomes of thrombolytic-facilitated and primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): Findings from PROVE/ACS study. ARYA Atherosclerosis. 2020;16(3):123-9. Epub 2021/01/16. [Crossref]
36. Joy ER, Kurian J, Gale CP. Comparative effectiveness of primary PCI versus fibrinolytic therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a review of the literature. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 2016;5(2):217-26.
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2015-0011 [Crossref]
37. Arnesen JS, Strøm KH, Bønaa KH, Wiseth R. Treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction - an observational study. Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening : Tidsskrift for Praktisk Medicin, ny raekke. 2019;139(17):65-9. Epub 2019/11/21.
https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.18.0928 [Crossref]
38. Asadpour Piranfar M, Jafari Fesharaki M, Taati R. Comparison of the 3-month outcome between Primary PCI and thrombolytic therapy concerning the left ventricular ejection fraction of STEMI patients at 90-minute intervals. Iranian Heart Journal. 2021;22(4):45-53. https://journal.iha.org.ir/article_137647.html.
39. Zubaid M, Khraishah H, Alahmad B, Rashed W, Ridha M, Alenezi F, et al. Efficacy and safety of pharmacoinvasive strategy compared to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the management of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a prospective country-wide registry. Annals of Global Health. 2020;86(1).
https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2632 [Crossref]
40. Kazemi MK, Alimohammadzadeh K, Maher A. Short-and long-term follow-up in the elderly patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction receiving primary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy. International Journal of Cardiovascular Practice. 2019;4(1):10-5.
https://doi.org/10.21859/ijcp-403 [Crossref]
41. Turk J, Fourny M, Yayehd K, Picard N, Ageron F-X, Boussat B, et al. Age-related differences in reperfusion therapy and outcomes for ST-Segment elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2018;66(7):1325-31.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.15383 [Crossref]
42. Khan S, Islam SU, Samin A, Yousaf H, Ali U, Shaheen Z, et al. Difference in outcomes in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, treated with thrombolysis versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal. 2021;71(Suppl-2):S384-88. https://pafmj.org/PAFMJ/article/view/7798
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
