0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Compared With Fibrinolysis for Myocardial Infarction in Diabetes Mellitus:  Results From the Primary Coronary Angioplasty vs Thrombolysis–2 Trial FREE

Jorik R. Timmer, MD, PhD; Jan Paul Ottervanger, MD, PhD; Menko-Jan de Boer, MD, PhD; Eric Boersma, PhD; Cindy L. Grines, MD; Cynthia M. Westerhout, MD; R. John Simes, MD, FRACP; Christopher B. Granger, MD; Felix Zijlstra, MD, PhD ; Primary Coronary Angioplasty vs Thrombolysis–2 Trialists Collaborators Group
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Cardiology, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, the Netherlands (Drs Timmer, Ottervanger, and de Boer); Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (Drs Boersma and Westerhout); William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan (Dr Grines); Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton (Dr Westerhout); National Health and Medical Research Counsel Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (Dr Simes); Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina (Dr Granger); and Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands (Dr Zijlstra).


Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(13):1353-1359. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.13.1353.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  There is growing evidence for a clinical benefit of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with fibrinolysis; however, whether the treatment effect is consistent among patients with diabetes mellitus is unclear. We compared PCI with fibrinolysis for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Methods  A pooled analysis of individual patient data from 19 trials comparing primary PCI with fibrinolysis for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was performed. Trials that enrolled at least 50 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and randomized patients to receive either primary PCI or fibrinolysis were considered for inclusion in our study. Clinical end points were total deaths, recurrent infarction, death or nonfatal recurrent infarction, and stroke, measured 30 days after randomization.

Results  Of 6315 patients, 877 (14%) had diabetes. Thirty-day mortality (9.4% vs 5.9%; P < .001) was higher in patients with diabetes. Mortality was lower after primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis in both patients with diabetes (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.79; P = .004) and without diabetes (unadjusted odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.86, P = .001), with no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effect (P = .24 for interaction). Recurrent infarction and stroke were also reduced after primary PCI in both patient groups. After multivariable analysis, primary PCI was associated with decreased 30-day mortality in patients with and without diabetes, with a point estimate of greater benefit in diabetic patients.

Conclusions  Diabetic patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with reperfusion therapy have increased mortality compared with patients without diabetes. The beneficial effects of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis in diabetic patients are consistent with effects in nondiabetic patients.

Figures in this Article

Prognosis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has improved markedly since the introduction of reperfusion therapy, either primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or fibrinolysis.1,2 Prognosis in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease is worse, and these patients may have different responses to various treatment regimens.35 Although there is growing evidence for a clinical benefit of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis insofar as short-term and long-term outcomes in general are concerned,1,6 data comparing primary PCI with fibrinolysis in diabetic patients are contradictory and describe only a limited number of patients.710 Although primary PCI has been suggested as the treatment of choice in patients at high risk,6,11 it remains unclear whether diabetic patients benefit equally. Diabetic patients have increased platelet agreeability and adhesiveness that may influence response to thrombolytic therapy,12 and angiographic and electrocardiographic success of fibrinolysis in diabetic patients has been debated.1315 However, PCI may result in a less favorable outcome in diabetic patients. Diabetic patients generally have more diffuse and extensive coronary artery disease with smaller reference diameters.16 Restenosis rates after angioplasty with or without stenting are significantly higher in diabetic patients.17,18 Furthermore, diabetic patients are more prone to experience life-threatening adverse events such as subacute stent thrombosis.19 We compared primary PCI with fibrinolysis in diabetic patients with STEMI based on individual patient data derived from randomized trials.

TRIAL SELECTION

Details of trial selection criteria and primary data analysis have been published previously.20 If a trial enrolled at least 50 patients with evolving STEMI and randomized patients to either treatment with fibrinolysis (streptokinase or tissue plasminogen activator) or primary PCI (without fibrinolytic therapy; with or without stenting), it was considered for inclusion in our study. To identify eligible trials, a MEDLINE search was performed using a broad range of key terms including “(acute) myocardial infarction,” “fibrinolysis,” “fibrinolytic,” “thrombolysis,” “thrombolytic,” “primary,” “angioplasty,” “stent,” and “percutaneous coronary intervention.” We considered all articles published between January 1990 and December 2002. References from identified articles and abstracts presented at annual international meetings of the American Heart Association (Circulation), American College of Cardiology (Journal of the American College of Cardiology), and European Society of Cardiology (European Heart Journal) were also examined. Each trial identified in this search was then critically evaluated by 3 investigators (E.B., C.M.W., and R.J.S.) for inclusion in the pooled analysis.

A flowsheet of the trial selection process is shown in Figure 1. Nineteen trials were included in the pooled analysis. Design characteristics of included trials are given in Table 1. Each trial was reviewed to determine whether treatment allocation was truly randomized, that there were no exclusions from the analysis, and for the extent to which outcome adjudication was blinded. Any discrepancies between analyses of these data provided and previously published results were queried and resolved. Clinical end points were total deaths, recurrent infarction, death or recurrent infarction, and stroke, measured 30 days after randomization. We compared clinical outcomes between patients with and without diabetes and the interaction of the method of reperfusion therapy and diabetes on outcome.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the trial selection process. PCI indicates percutaneous coronary intervention; STEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Trials Included in the Meta-analysis
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Continuous data were summarized and are given as median values with corresponding interquartile range or as mean values with corresponding SD, whereas dichotomous data are given as counts and percentages. Wilcoxon rank sum, Kruskal-Wallis, or χ2 tests were used as appropriate. To pool trial- or diabetes-specific outcome data, the Cochran–Mantel-Haenszel method was used, and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 30-day mortality are given. In addition, the Breslow-Day test was used to assess heterogeneity of treatment effect according to diabetes status or among the trial-specific ORs. Odds ratios were further adjusted for other baseline characteristics, including age, sex, time to randomization, treatment delay, systolic blood pressure, anterior myocardial infarction (MI), previous MI, heart rate, and randomized treatment, using multiple logistic regression. Statistical significance for all analyses was defined as P < .05. The number of patients needed to treat was calculated as the inverse of the absolute risk difference in outcome. The 95% CI of the patients needed to treat was estimated using the 95% CI associated with the absolute risk difference.

Individual patient data were collected for 6763 patients with STEMI enrolled in 22 randomized clinical trials as part of the PCAT-2 (Primary Coronary Angioplasty vs Thrombolysis–2) trial. Of the 6763 patients, complete data on diabetes status were available for 6315 patients (93.4%) on which the following analyses are based. Of these patients, 877 (14%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes were older, were more often female, more often had previous MI, and had longer ischemic time. Baseline characteristics of patients with and without diabetes are given in Table 2.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Baseline Characteristics of Patients With STEMI Without vs With Diabetes a

After 30 days, 401 patients (6.3%) had died. Mortality after 30 days was significantly higher in patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes (9.4% vs 5.9%; P < .001; unadjusted OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.26-2.13; P < .001). This finding was consistent across the trials (Breslow-Day test, P = .39). Recurrent MI after 30 days was comparable between patients with and without diabetes (4.4% vs 4.5%; P = .87). Death or recurrent MI was significantly higher in patients with diabetes (13.2% vs 9.7%; P = .001). Stroke data were available for 6085 patients (96.3%). The occurrence of stroke after admission was comparable between patients with and without diabetes (2.6% vs 2.0%; P = .29). After baseline adjustment, diabetes was associated with a trend for an increase in 30-day mortality (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.99-1.68; P = .06) and death or recurrent MI (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.00-2.01; P = .054) but not with an increase in recurrent MI only (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.69-1.40; P = .92).

ASSOCIATIONS AMONG DIABETIC STATUS, TREATMENT, AND 30-DAY MORTALITY

Of patients without diabetes, 2700 (50%) were randomized to receive primary PCI, compared with 456 (52%) patients with diabetes. Baseline characteristics of patients with diabetes according to the method of reperfusion therapy are summarized in Table 3. There were no significant differences between diabetic patients randomized to receive primary PCI or fibrinolysis. Unadjusted mortality, recurrent MI, and stroke in patients with and without diabetes according to the method of reperfusion therapy are given in Table 4. Primary PCI was associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality in patients with and without diabetes. This reduction was most pronounced in diabetic patients. To save 1 life at 30 days, 48 patients without diabetes (95% CI, 37-60) had to be treated with primary PCI compared with 17 patients with diabetes (95% CI, 11-28). No interaction between type of fibrinolytic agent, mortality, and presence of diabetes was found.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Baseline Characteristics of Patients With Diabetes According to Randomized Method of Reperfusion Therapy: Fibrinolysis vs Primary PCI a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Thirty-Day Clinical End Points in Patients According to Diabetes Status and Randomized Method of Reperfusion Therapy a

After adjusting for potential confounders, including age, sex, time to randomization, treatment delay, systolic blood pressure, anterior MI, previous MI, heart rate, and randomized treatment, primary PCI was independently associated with improved 30-day survival (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.79; P < .001), which was evident in patients both with diabetes (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.80; P = .003) and those without diabetes (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001; interaction P = .24; Figure 2). This treatment effect was consistent across the pooled trials (Breslow-Day test, P = .52).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the risk of 30-day mortality according to the method of reperfusion therapy in patients with and without diabetes. DM indicates diabetes mellitus; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

Graphic Jump Location

This analysis showed no difference in relative mortality reduction after primary PCI in patients with and without diabetes. Because diabetes was associated with increased 30-day mortality, the absolute benefit of primary PCI can be expected to be greater in patients with diabetes.

The negative influence of diabetes on outcome after STEMI has been described previously.10 In addition to differences in baseline patient characteristics, including age, sex, previous MI, longer ischemic time, or a higher prevalence of multivessel disease, prothrombotic derangement and unfavorable lipid metabolism might predispose diabetic patients to future coronary events.12,46,47 Because mortality remains particularly high in patients with diabetes after STEMI, it is important to define optimal treatment strategies, including method of reperfusion therapy, in this population.

In a general patient population, primary PCI improves outcome when compared with fibrinolysis.1,6 However, effects of reperfusion therapy may be different in patients with diabetes. Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes may be more complex, with higher complication rates.1719,48 Fibrinolysis may also be less effective in diabetic patients.1315 Previous trials comparing primary PCI with fibrinolysis for STEMI in diabetic patients are few and conflicting. Hsu et al8 found a significant benefit of primary PCI in major cardiac events in 202 diabetic patients in a registry study. A subanalysis of the CAPTIM (Comparison of Angioplasty and Prehospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction) study also revealed a possible beneficial effect of primary PCI in 103 diabetic patients.9 An analysis of the GUSTO-IIb Angioplasty Substudy (Second Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes), which included only 177 diabetic patients, showed a consistent treatment effect (with wide confidence intervals) of primary PCI in patients with and without diabetes.10 In our analysis including a large number of patients, it was more clearly demonstrated that primary PCI is associated with improved survival after 30 days in both patients with and without diabetes.

The point estimate of the benefit of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis was greater in diabetic patients, and because the absolute risk is higher in this population, the absolute benefit was greater. This observation may be the result of delay in initiation of therapy and longer ischemic time in diabetic patients, which may be related in part to atypical symptoms.49,50 In particular, thrombolytic therapy seems to be negatively influenced by longer time to initiation of therapy.51 Also, microvascular flow seems to be decreased in diabetic patients after fibrinolysis.14 Possibly, this is associated with increased platelet aggregation and reduced ability to induce endothelium-mediated vasodilation.12 In addition to the superiority of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis in restoring optimal epicardial flow, percutaneous intervention is associated with improved microvascular flow.52

It is not known whether the clinical benefit of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis is sustained with time because no long-term follow-up data are yet available. No data on the type of treatment of diabetes (insulin or no insulin) were present. Furthermore, the effect of long-term glycometabolic control in diabetic patients according to method of reperfusion therapy could not be assessed because glycosylated hemoglobin levels were unavailable. Most patients in the fibrinolysis group in the current analysis were not treated with prehospital fibrinolysis. Selection is a potential limitation of randomized controlled trials. Indeed, the prevalence of diabetes in the present patients is somewhat lower when compared with registries.53,54 Also, the relatively young age of our patient group may suggest some bias resulting from the inclusion process. However, the demonstration of a clear benefit of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis in these patients only strengthens our conclusions.

Diabetic patients with STEMI treated with reperfusion therapy have higher mortality compared with nondiabetic patients. The beneficial effect of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis is consistent in patients with and without diabetes. Wider application of timely primary PCI could be an important strategy to improve outcomes in the high-risk population of diabetic patients.

Correspondence: Jan Paul Ottervanger, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Isala Klinieken, Groot Wezenland 20, 8011 JW Zwolle, the Netherlands (v.r.c.derks@isala.nl).

Accepted for Publication: March 4, 2007.

Author Contributions: Dr Ottervanger had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Timmer, Ottervanger, de Boer, Grines, Granger, and Zijlstra. Acquisition of data: Grines, Westerhout, and Granger. Analysis and interpretation of data: Timmer, Ottervanger, Boersma, Grines, Westerhout, Simes, and Granger. Drafting of the manuscript: Timmer, Ottervanger, de Boer, and Simes. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Ottervanger, Boersma, Grines, Westerhout, Granger, and Zijlstra. Statistical analysis: Timmer, Ottervanger, Boersma, and Westerhout. Obtained funding: Granger. Administrative, technical, and material support: Timmer, Ottervanger, Simes, and Zijlstra. Study supervision: Ottervanger and de Boer.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

PCAT-2 Collaborative Group:Study Chairs: Eric Boersma, PhD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; R. John Simes, MD, FRACP, National Health and Medical Research Counsel Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Cindy L. Grines, MD, Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan. Trialists: Zwolle studies: Menko-Jan de Boer, MD, PhD, Isala Klinieken, Zwolle, the Netherlands; Felix Zijlstra, MD, PhD, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; Expedito Ribeiro, MD, PhD, Heart Institute of the University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Liliana Grinfeld, MD, Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina; Fawaz Akhras, MD, Cromwell Hospital, London, England; and Sahko Kedev, MD, Skopje Clinic Center, Skopje, Macedonia. PRAGUE (PRimary Angioplasty in patients transferred from General community hospitals to specialized percutaneous coronary angioplasty Units with or without Emergency thrombolysis) Study: Petr Widimský, MD, PhD, Cardiocenter Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic; and Marcus A. DeWood, MD, Deaconess Medical Center, Spokane Heart Research Foundation, Spokane, Washington. Mayo Trial: Raymond J. Gibbons, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. PAMI (Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction) and Air PAMI studies: Cindy L. Grines, MD. GUSTO-IIb (Global Utilization of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) Study: Christopher B. Granger, MD, and Robert Califf, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina; Paul W. Armstrong, MD, University of Alberta, Edmonton; and R. John Simes, MD, FRACP, University of Sydney. JIMI (Japanese Intervention Trial in Myocardial Infarction): Hidehiko Aoki, MD, Iwate Medical University, Morioka, Japan; Joao Morais, MD, Santo André's Hospital, Leiria, Portugal; Flavio Ribichini, MD, University of Verona, Cuneo, Italy; and Eulogica Garcia, MD, University Hospital Gregorio Maranon, Madrid, Spain. Limburg Myocardial Infarction Trial: Fritz Bär, MD, PhD, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands. STAT (Stenting vs Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial): Michel R. LeMay, MD, Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario. STOPAMI (Stent vs Thrombolysis for Occluded Coronary Arteries in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) studies: Adnan Kastrati, MD, and Albert Schömig, MD, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Munich, Germany. C-PORT (Cardiovascular Patient Outcomes Research Team) Trial: Thomas Aversano, MD, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. DANAMI-2 (Second Danish Trial of Acute Myocardial Infarction): Henning Rud Andersen, MD, and Torsten T. Nielsen, MD, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Zijlstra  FHoorntje  JCde Boer  MJ  et al.  Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999;341 (19) 1413- 1419
PubMed Link to Article
Granger  CBCaliff  RMTopol  EJ Thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a review. Drugs 1992;44 (3) 293- 325[published correction appears in Drugs. 1993;45(6):894].
PubMed Link to Article
Quinn  MJMoliterno  DJ Diabetes and percutaneous coronary intervention: the sweet smell of success? Am Heart J 2003;145 (2) 203- 205
PubMed Link to Article
Roffi  MTopol  EJ Percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2004;25 (3) 190- 198
PubMed Link to Article
van Bergen  PFDeckers  JWJonker  JJvan Domburg  RTAzar  AJHofman  A Efficacy of long-term anticoagulant treatment in subgroups of patients after myocardial infarction. Br Heart J 1995;74 (2) 117- 121
PubMed Link to Article
Grines  CPatel  AZijlstra  FWeaver  WDGranger  CSimes  RJPCAT Collaborators, Primary coronary angioplasty compared with intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: six-month follow up and analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. Am Heart J 2003;145 (1) 47- 57
PubMed Link to Article
Thomas  KOttervanger  JPde Boer  MJSuryapranata  HHoorntje  JCAZijlstra  F Primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction in diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 1999;22 (4) 647- 649
PubMed Link to Article
Hsu  LFMak  KHLau  KW  et al.  Clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty or fibrinolysis. Heart 2002;88 (3) 260- 265
PubMed Link to Article
Bonnefoy  ESteg  PGChabaud  S  et al.  Is primary angioplasty more effective than prehospital fibrinolysis in diabetics with acute myocardial infarction? data from the CAPTIM randomized clinical trial [published online ahead of print April 9, 2005]. Eur Heart J 2005;26 (17) 1712- 1718
PubMed Link to Article
Hasdai  DGranger  CBSrivatsa  SS  et al. Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes, Diabetes mellitus and outcome after primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: lessons from the GUSTO-IIb Angioplasty Substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35 (6) 1502- 1512[published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(2):following 659].
PubMed Link to Article
Webb  JGSanborn  TASleeper  LA  et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK Trial Registry. Am Heart J 2001;141 (6) 964- 970
PubMed Link to Article
Colwell  JANesto  RW The platelet in diabetes: focus on prevention of ischemic events. Diabetes Care 2003;26 (7) 2181- 2188
PubMed Link to Article
Zairis  MNLyras  AGMakrygiannis  SS  et al.  Type 2 diabetes and intravenous thrombolysis outcome in the setting of ST elevation myocardial infarction. Diabetes Care 2004;27 (4) 967- 971
PubMed Link to Article
Angeja  BGde Lemos  JMurphy  SA  et al.  Impact of diabetes mellitus on epicardial and microvascular flow after fibrinolytic therapy. Am Heart J 2002;144 (4) 649- 656
PubMed Link to Article
Woodfield  SLLundergan  CFReiner  JS  et al.  Angiographic findings and outcome in diabetic patients treated with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: the GUSTO-I experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28 (7) 1661- 1669
PubMed Link to Article
Goraya  TYLeibson  CLPalumbo  PJ  et al.  Coronary atherosclerosis in diabetes mellitus: a population-based autopsy study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40 (5) 946- 953
PubMed Link to Article
West  NERuygrok  PNDisco  CM  et al.  Clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis after stent deployment in diabetic patients [published online ahead of print February 2, 2004]. Circulation 2004;109 (7) 867- 873
PubMed Link to Article
Van Belle  EAbolmaali  KBauters  CPerie  MAbolmaali  KRichard  F Restenosis, late vessel occlusion and left ventricular function six months after balloon angioplasty in diabetic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34 (2) 476- 485
PubMed Link to Article
Silva  JARamee  SRWhite  CJ  et al.  Primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: influence of diabetes mellitus in angiographic results and clinical outcome. Am Heart J 1999;138 (3, pt 1) 446- 455
PubMed Link to Article
Boersma  EPrimary Coronary vs. Thrombolysis Group, Does time matter? a pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients [published online ahead of print March 2, 2006]. Eur Heart J 2006;27 (7) 779- 788
PubMed Link to Article
Bonnefoy  ELapostolle  FLeizorovicz  A  et al.  Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study. Lancet 2002;360 (9336) 825- 829
PubMed Link to Article
DeWood  MA Surgical reperfusion vs rt-PA vs PTCA as therapy for single vessel LAD anterior myocardial infarction. Circulation 1992;86 ((suppl)) 772
Morais  JFaria  HGoncalves  F  et al.  Primary angioplasty in better than front loaded t-PA to preserve left ventricular function after acute anterior myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 1997;18 (3(suppl)) 496
PubMed Link to Article
Grinfeld  LBerrocal  DBelardi  J  et al.  Fibrinolytics vs. primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (FAP) [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27 ((suppl)) A222
Link to Article
Widimský  PGroch  LZelizko  MAschermann  MBednar  FSuryapranata  H 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 (10) 823- 831
PubMed Link to Article
Aoki  HSuzuki  TShibata  M  et al.  A prospective randomized trial of intracoronary t-PA versus coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: Japanese Intervention Trial in Myocardial Infarction (JIMI) [abstract]. Circulation 1997;96 ((suppl)) 3003
Zijlstra  Fde Boer  MJHoorntje  JCAReiffers  SReiber  JHSuryapranata  H A comparison of immediate coronary angioplasty with intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328 (10) 680- 684
PubMed Link to Article
Ribeiro  EESilva  LACarneiro  R  et al.  Randomized trial of direct coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22 (2) 376- 380
PubMed Link to Article
Zijlstra  FBeukema  WPvan't Hof  AW  et al.  Randomized comparison of primary coronary angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy in low risk patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29 (5) 908- 912
PubMed Link to Article
Akhras  FAbuOusa  ASwann  GDuncan  HChamsiPasha  HJabbad  H Primary coronary angioplasty or intravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute myocardial infarction? acute and late follow-up results in a new cardiac unit [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29 ((suppl 1)) A235
Link to Article
Kedev  SPetrovski  BKotevski  VAntov  SSokolov  IJovanova  S Primary coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29 ((suppl A)) 92542
de Boer  MJOttervanger  JPvan't Hof  AWHoorntje  JCSuryapranata  HZijlstra  FZwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group, Reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomized comparison of primary angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39 (11) 1723- 1728
PubMed Link to Article
Widimský  PBudesinsky  TVorac  D  et al. “PRAGUE” Study Group Investigators, Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: final results of the randomized national multicentre trial. PRAGUE-2. Eur Heart J 2003;24 (1) 94- 104
PubMed Link to Article
Gibbons  RJHolmes  DRReeder  GSBailey  KRHopfenspirger  MRGersh  BJ Immediate angioplasty compared with the administration of a thrombolytic agent followed by conservative treatment for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328 (10) 685- 691
PubMed Link to Article
Grines  CLBrowne  KFMarco  J  et al.  A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328 (10) 673- 679
PubMed Link to Article
The 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 (23) 1621- 1628[published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 1997;337(4):287].
PubMed Link to Article
Ribichini  FSteffenino  GDellavalle  A  et al.  Comparison of thrombolytic therapy and primary coronary angioplasty with liberal stenting for inferior myocardial infarction with precordial ST-segment depression: immediate and long-term results of a randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32 (6) 1687- 1694
PubMed Link to Article
García  EElizaga  JPerez-Castellano  N  et al.  Primary angioplasty versus systemic thrombolysis in anterior myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33 (3) 605- 611
PubMed Link to Article
Vermeer  FOude Ophuis  AJvd Berg  EJ  et al.  Prospective randomised comparison between thrombolysis, rescue PTCA, and primary PTCA in patients with extensive myocardial infarction admitted to a hospital without PTCA facilities: a safety and feasibility study. Heart 1999;82 (4) 426- 431
PubMed
Le May  MRLabinaz  MDavies  RF  et al.  Stenting Versus Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (STAT). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37 (4) 985- 991
PubMed Link to Article
Schömig  AKastrati  ADirschinger  J  et al.  Coronary stenting plus platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000;343 (6) 385- 391
PubMed Link to Article
Grines  CLWesterhausen  DR  JrGrines  LL  et al.  A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39 (11) 1713- 1719
PubMed Link to Article
Aversano  TAversano  LTPassamani  E  et al.  Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;287 (15) 1943- 1951[published correction appears in JAMA. 2002;287(24):3212].
PubMed Link to Article
Andersen  HRNielsen  TTRasmussen  K  et al.  A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003;349 (8) 733- 742
PubMed Link to Article
Kastrati  AMehilli  JDirschinger  J  et al.  Myocardial salvage after coronary stenting plus abciximab versus fibrinolysis plus abciximab in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359 (9310) 920- 925
PubMed Link to Article
Kreisberg  RA Diabetic dyslipidemia. Am J Cardiol 1998;82 (12A) 67U- 73U
PubMed Link to Article
Winocour  PD Platelet abnormalities in diabetes mellitus. Diabetes 1992;41 ((suppl 2)) 26- 31
PubMed Link to Article
O’Neill  WW Multivessel balloon angioplasty should be abandoned in diabetic patients! J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31 (1) 20- 22
PubMed Link to Article
Culić  VEterovic  DMiric  DSilic  N Symptom presentation of acute myocardial infarction: influence of sex, age, and risk factors Am Heart J 2002;144 (6) 1012- 1017
PubMed Link to Article
Yarzebski  JGoldberg  RJGore  JMAlpert  JS Temporal trends and factors associated with extent of delay to hospital arrival in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Worcester Heart Attack Study. Am Heart J 1994;128 (2) 255- 263
PubMed Link to Article
Boersma  EMaas  ACDeckers  JWSimoons  ML Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet 1996;348 (9030) 771- 775
PubMed Link to Article
Agati  LVoci  PHickle  P  et al.  Tissue-type plasminogen activator therapy versus primary coronary angioplasty: impact on myocardial tissue perfusion and regional function 1 month after uncomplicated myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31 (2) 338- 343
PubMed Link to Article
Fox  KAAnderson  FADabbous  OH  et al.  Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? Heart 2007;93 (2) 177- 182
PubMed Link to Article
Bradley  EHHerrin  JWang  Y  et al.  Door-to-drug and door-to-balloon times: where can we improve? Time to reperfusion therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Am Heart J 2006;151 (6) 1281- 1287
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the trial selection process. PCI indicates percutaneous coronary intervention; STEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the risk of 30-day mortality according to the method of reperfusion therapy in patients with and without diabetes. DM indicates diabetes mellitus; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Characteristics of Trials Included in the Meta-analysis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Baseline Characteristics of Patients With STEMI Without vs With Diabetes a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Baseline Characteristics of Patients With Diabetes According to Randomized Method of Reperfusion Therapy: Fibrinolysis vs Primary PCI a
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Thirty-Day Clinical End Points in Patients According to Diabetes Status and Randomized Method of Reperfusion Therapy a

References

Zijlstra  FHoorntje  JCde Boer  MJ  et al.  Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999;341 (19) 1413- 1419
PubMed Link to Article
Granger  CBCaliff  RMTopol  EJ Thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a review. Drugs 1992;44 (3) 293- 325[published correction appears in Drugs. 1993;45(6):894].
PubMed Link to Article
Quinn  MJMoliterno  DJ Diabetes and percutaneous coronary intervention: the sweet smell of success? Am Heart J 2003;145 (2) 203- 205
PubMed Link to Article
Roffi  MTopol  EJ Percutaneous coronary intervention in diabetic patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2004;25 (3) 190- 198
PubMed Link to Article
van Bergen  PFDeckers  JWJonker  JJvan Domburg  RTAzar  AJHofman  A Efficacy of long-term anticoagulant treatment in subgroups of patients after myocardial infarction. Br Heart J 1995;74 (2) 117- 121
PubMed Link to Article
Grines  CPatel  AZijlstra  FWeaver  WDGranger  CSimes  RJPCAT Collaborators, Primary coronary angioplasty compared with intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: six-month follow up and analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. Am Heart J 2003;145 (1) 47- 57
PubMed Link to Article
Thomas  KOttervanger  JPde Boer  MJSuryapranata  HHoorntje  JCAZijlstra  F Primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction in diabetic patients. Diabetes Care 1999;22 (4) 647- 649
PubMed Link to Article
Hsu  LFMak  KHLau  KW  et al.  Clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus and acute myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty or fibrinolysis. Heart 2002;88 (3) 260- 265
PubMed Link to Article
Bonnefoy  ESteg  PGChabaud  S  et al.  Is primary angioplasty more effective than prehospital fibrinolysis in diabetics with acute myocardial infarction? data from the CAPTIM randomized clinical trial [published online ahead of print April 9, 2005]. Eur Heart J 2005;26 (17) 1712- 1718
PubMed Link to Article
Hasdai  DGranger  CBSrivatsa  SS  et al. Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes, Diabetes mellitus and outcome after primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: lessons from the GUSTO-IIb Angioplasty Substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35 (6) 1502- 1512[published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(2):following 659].
PubMed Link to Article
Webb  JGSanborn  TASleeper  LA  et al.  Percutaneous coronary intervention for cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK Trial Registry. Am Heart J 2001;141 (6) 964- 970
PubMed Link to Article
Colwell  JANesto  RW The platelet in diabetes: focus on prevention of ischemic events. Diabetes Care 2003;26 (7) 2181- 2188
PubMed Link to Article
Zairis  MNLyras  AGMakrygiannis  SS  et al.  Type 2 diabetes and intravenous thrombolysis outcome in the setting of ST elevation myocardial infarction. Diabetes Care 2004;27 (4) 967- 971
PubMed Link to Article
Angeja  BGde Lemos  JMurphy  SA  et al.  Impact of diabetes mellitus on epicardial and microvascular flow after fibrinolytic therapy. Am Heart J 2002;144 (4) 649- 656
PubMed Link to Article
Woodfield  SLLundergan  CFReiner  JS  et al.  Angiographic findings and outcome in diabetic patients treated with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: the GUSTO-I experience. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28 (7) 1661- 1669
PubMed Link to Article
Goraya  TYLeibson  CLPalumbo  PJ  et al.  Coronary atherosclerosis in diabetes mellitus: a population-based autopsy study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40 (5) 946- 953
PubMed Link to Article
West  NERuygrok  PNDisco  CM  et al.  Clinical and angiographic predictors of restenosis after stent deployment in diabetic patients [published online ahead of print February 2, 2004]. Circulation 2004;109 (7) 867- 873
PubMed Link to Article
Van Belle  EAbolmaali  KBauters  CPerie  MAbolmaali  KRichard  F Restenosis, late vessel occlusion and left ventricular function six months after balloon angioplasty in diabetic patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34 (2) 476- 485
PubMed Link to Article
Silva  JARamee  SRWhite  CJ  et al.  Primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: influence of diabetes mellitus in angiographic results and clinical outcome. Am Heart J 1999;138 (3, pt 1) 446- 455
PubMed Link to Article
Boersma  EPrimary Coronary vs. Thrombolysis Group, Does time matter? a pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients [published online ahead of print March 2, 2006]. Eur Heart J 2006;27 (7) 779- 788
PubMed Link to Article
Bonnefoy  ELapostolle  FLeizorovicz  A  et al.  Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study. Lancet 2002;360 (9336) 825- 829
PubMed Link to Article
DeWood  MA Surgical reperfusion vs rt-PA vs PTCA as therapy for single vessel LAD anterior myocardial infarction. Circulation 1992;86 ((suppl)) 772
Morais  JFaria  HGoncalves  F  et al.  Primary angioplasty in better than front loaded t-PA to preserve left ventricular function after acute anterior myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 1997;18 (3(suppl)) 496
PubMed Link to Article
Grinfeld  LBerrocal  DBelardi  J  et al.  Fibrinolytics vs. primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (FAP) [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27 ((suppl)) A222
Link to Article
Widimský  PGroch  LZelizko  MAschermann  MBednar  FSuryapranata  H 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 (10) 823- 831
PubMed Link to Article
Aoki  HSuzuki  TShibata  M  et al.  A prospective randomized trial of intracoronary t-PA versus coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: Japanese Intervention Trial in Myocardial Infarction (JIMI) [abstract]. Circulation 1997;96 ((suppl)) 3003
Zijlstra  Fde Boer  MJHoorntje  JCAReiffers  SReiber  JHSuryapranata  H A comparison of immediate coronary angioplasty with intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328 (10) 680- 684
PubMed Link to Article
Ribeiro  EESilva  LACarneiro  R  et al.  Randomized trial of direct coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22 (2) 376- 380
PubMed Link to Article
Zijlstra  FBeukema  WPvan't Hof  AW  et al.  Randomized comparison of primary coronary angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy in low risk patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29 (5) 908- 912
PubMed Link to Article
Akhras  FAbuOusa  ASwann  GDuncan  HChamsiPasha  HJabbad  H Primary coronary angioplasty or intravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute myocardial infarction? acute and late follow-up results in a new cardiac unit [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29 ((suppl 1)) A235
Link to Article
Kedev  SPetrovski  BKotevski  VAntov  SSokolov  IJovanova  S Primary coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29 ((suppl A)) 92542
de Boer  MJOttervanger  JPvan't Hof  AWHoorntje  JCSuryapranata  HZijlstra  FZwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group, Reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomized comparison of primary angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39 (11) 1723- 1728
PubMed Link to Article
Widimský  PBudesinsky  TVorac  D  et al. “PRAGUE” Study Group Investigators, Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: final results of the randomized national multicentre trial. PRAGUE-2. Eur Heart J 2003;24 (1) 94- 104
PubMed Link to Article
Gibbons  RJHolmes  DRReeder  GSBailey  KRHopfenspirger  MRGersh  BJ Immediate angioplasty compared with the administration of a thrombolytic agent followed by conservative treatment for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328 (10) 685- 691
PubMed Link to Article
Grines  CLBrowne  KFMarco  J  et al.  A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328 (10) 673- 679
PubMed Link to Article
The 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 (23) 1621- 1628[published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 1997;337(4):287].
PubMed Link to Article
Ribichini  FSteffenino  GDellavalle  A  et al.  Comparison of thrombolytic therapy and primary coronary angioplasty with liberal stenting for inferior myocardial infarction with precordial ST-segment depression: immediate and long-term results of a randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32 (6) 1687- 1694
PubMed Link to Article
García  EElizaga  JPerez-Castellano  N  et al.  Primary angioplasty versus systemic thrombolysis in anterior myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33 (3) 605- 611
PubMed Link to Article
Vermeer  FOude Ophuis  AJvd Berg  EJ  et al.  Prospective randomised comparison between thrombolysis, rescue PTCA, and primary PTCA in patients with extensive myocardial infarction admitted to a hospital without PTCA facilities: a safety and feasibility study. Heart 1999;82 (4) 426- 431
PubMed
Le May  MRLabinaz  MDavies  RF  et al.  Stenting Versus Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial (STAT). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37 (4) 985- 991
PubMed Link to Article
Schömig  AKastrati  ADirschinger  J  et al.  Coronary stenting plus platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000;343 (6) 385- 391
PubMed Link to Article
Grines  CLWesterhausen  DR  JrGrines  LL  et al.  A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39 (11) 1713- 1719
PubMed Link to Article
Aversano  TAversano  LTPassamani  E  et al.  Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;287 (15) 1943- 1951[published correction appears in JAMA. 2002;287(24):3212].
PubMed Link to Article
Andersen  HRNielsen  TTRasmussen  K  et al.  A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003;349 (8) 733- 742
PubMed Link to Article
Kastrati  AMehilli  JDirschinger  J  et al.  Myocardial salvage after coronary stenting plus abciximab versus fibrinolysis plus abciximab in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359 (9310) 920- 925
PubMed Link to Article
Kreisberg  RA Diabetic dyslipidemia. Am J Cardiol 1998;82 (12A) 67U- 73U
PubMed Link to Article
Winocour  PD Platelet abnormalities in diabetes mellitus. Diabetes 1992;41 ((suppl 2)) 26- 31
PubMed Link to Article
O’Neill  WW Multivessel balloon angioplasty should be abandoned in diabetic patients! J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31 (1) 20- 22
PubMed Link to Article
Culić  VEterovic  DMiric  DSilic  N Symptom presentation of acute myocardial infarction: influence of sex, age, and risk factors Am Heart J 2002;144 (6) 1012- 1017
PubMed Link to Article
Yarzebski  JGoldberg  RJGore  JMAlpert  JS Temporal trends and factors associated with extent of delay to hospital arrival in patients with acute myocardial infarction: the Worcester Heart Attack Study. Am Heart J 1994;128 (2) 255- 263
PubMed Link to Article
Boersma  EMaas  ACDeckers  JWSimoons  ML Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet 1996;348 (9030) 771- 775
PubMed Link to Article
Agati  LVoci  PHickle  P  et al.  Tissue-type plasminogen activator therapy versus primary coronary angioplasty: impact on myocardial tissue perfusion and regional function 1 month after uncomplicated myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31 (2) 338- 343
PubMed Link to Article
Fox  KAAnderson  FADabbous  OH  et al.  Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? Heart 2007;93 (2) 177- 182
PubMed Link to Article
Bradley  EHHerrin  JWang  Y  et al.  Door-to-drug and door-to-balloon times: where can we improve? Time to reperfusion therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Am Heart J 2006;151 (6) 1281- 1287
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 35

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Resolution

Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Clinical Scenario