To Transfer or Not to Transfer? The debate between transfer for PCI versus local thrombolysis. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

to transfer or not to transfer the debate between transfer for pci versus local thrombolysis n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
To Transfer or Not to Transfer? The debate between transfer for PCI versus local thrombolysis. PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
To Transfer or Not to Transfer? The debate between transfer for PCI versus local thrombolysis.

play fullscreen
1 / 51
To Transfer or Not to Transfer? The debate between transfer for PCI versus local thrombolysis.
211 Views
Download Presentation
tejano
Download Presentation

To Transfer or Not to Transfer? The debate between transfer for PCI versus local thrombolysis.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. To Transfer or Not to Transfer?The debate between transfer for PCI versus local thrombolysis. Todd Ring, BSc., MD, CCFP March 11, 2004 University of Calgary Emergency Medicine Grand Rounds

  2. An Area of Controversy…

  3. Overview • Is PCI better than thrombolysis? • Evidence behind transfer for PCI • Is transfer safe? • Is timing everything? • Issues closer to home

  4. Rationale • Minority of patients with AMI present directly to PCI center • Reality most present to EMS or local hospital (non PCI center) • Results from prior trials comparing PCI to local thrombolysis difficult to extrapolate to non PCI center • Treatment bias • Center and operator experience • Effect of treatment delay unknown

  5. Is PCI Better?

  6. Primary Angioplasty Versus Intravenous Thrombolytic Therapy for AMI: A Quantitative Review of 23 Randomized Trials.The Lancet 36. 2003 • Meta-analysis of 23 RCT • 7739 TL eligible patients • 3872 PCI • 3867 TL (67% TPA) • Short (4 – 6 week) and long term (6 – 18 month) outcomes

  7. p < .0001 p = .003(excluding SHOCK)

  8. Major bleed only sig. negative result for PCI Similar results short and long term favouring PCI

  9. Problems with Evidence Favoring PCI • If SHOCK data is excluded and look at subgroup receiving aTPA • Mortality: 5.5 PCI vs 6.7 TL p = .08 • Definition of re-infarction • Majority of cases of re-infarction in TL group occurs in 1st hour • At this time patients many patients still in cath lab demonstrating low flow, spasm, dissection, distal embolization • Only 2 large trials >1000 pts; 15 trials < 200 pts • No weighting of outcome data

  10. Conclusions Regarding PCI • Evidence favours PCI over all forms of thrombolysis • ? Evidence is not as convincing at it may appear • Bias from pro-lytic and pro-interventionalists • TL has higher complications of stroke and re-infarction and PCI higher bleeding risks • Both groups agree that even despite the large number of trials confirmation in a large trial comparing mortality for PCI vs. modern quick infusion TL is needed

  11. What is the Evidence Supporting Transfer for PCI?

  12. PRAGUE:Multicenter RCT comparing PCI vs. TL vs. combined strategy for patients with AMI presenting to a community hospital.EHJ 21. 2000 • 1st randomized study to compare transfer for PCI vs. thrombolysis; June ’97 – March ’99 • 17 community referral centers; 4 PCI centers • Patients randomized into one of three groups • Group A: TL at local hospital; remained at local hospital • Group B: TL en route; angiographyangioplasty if necessary • Group C: transfer for PCI

  13. PRAGUE • 1588 pts with STEMI/new LBBB; 300 randomized • Within 6h Sx onset • Endpoints: combined end point (CEP); death/re-infarction/stroke • Transport distance 5 – 75 km

  14. Re-infarction rate only sig. result

  15. PRAGUE: Discussion/Limitations • Trial only enrolled 300/1588 eligible patients • < 6h from Sx onset • Transport time <60min; distance <75km • CEP; largely driven by re-infarct • Support data regarding experienced labs/operators • No evidence to support facilitated PCI

  16. PRAGUE-2: Long distance transport for PCI vs. immediate thrombolysis for AMI. EHJ 24. 2003 • Based on results of PRAGUE and LIMI (Vermeer); larger, nationwide, 30 d mortality as primary endpoint • Sept ’99 – Jan ’02 • 41 community hospitals and 7 PCI centers • 4853 patients with MI; 850 randomized (target sample 1200) • 2 groups • TL: streptokinase (remain in first hospital) • PCI: transport to tertiary center; PCI

  17. PRAGUE-2 • Based on safety concerns regarding treatment delay subgroup analysis • < 3 h and 3 – 12 h after Sx onset • Transport distance 5 – 120 km • Study prematurely stopped • 2.5 fold excess mortality in TL group treated >3h

  18. p < .02 Trend p .12 No difference

  19. PRAGUE 2:Discussion/Limitations • No difference in < 3 h group • Distance < 120 km • Streptokinase TL agent • TL patients remained at local hospital • Physician at local hospital could elect to send patients directly for PCI • One reason trial stopped early • ? Source of bias

  20. DANAMI:A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in AMI. NEJM 349 (8). 2003 • Danish trial; Dec’97 – Oct ‘01 • 24 referral centers; 5 PCI centers • 62% Danish population • 2 groups • TL: remained at local hospital • PCI • CEP (death, re-infarct, stroke) at 30 days • Distance 3 – 150 km (mean 50 km)

  21. DANAMI • 2 concurrent study groups • Referral hospital • Invasive • 1527 pts1129 from 24 referral hospitals  443 from 5 invasive centers

  22. CEP driven by 75 % reduction in re-infarction, BUT 30 day mortality 24 % (re-infarct) vs. 6.5 % NNT = 18 NNT = 17

  23. DANAMI: Repeat Revascularization • 26 of 782 patients (3.3 %) in TL group underwent repeat TL within 12 h; 15 (1.9%) rescue angioplasty • Over 30 days of follow up 148 (18.9%) of patients in TL vs. 72 (9.1%) of PCI underwent mechanical revascularization (p<.001)

  24. DANAMI: Discussion/Limitations • Primary endpoint CEP • Excluded high risk patients • ? Benefit most • Short transport distance • Only 2/5 PCI centers performed PCI prior to study • ? Greater benefit than reported • Sickest patients not transported

  25. CAPTIM: Primary angioplasty vs. prehospital fibrinolysis in AMI: a randomised study. The Lancet 360. 2002 • Randomized, multi-center trial based in France; June ’97 – Sept ’01 • 840 patients (1200 planned—lack of funding) • 27 hospitals and associated EMS • Presented within 6 h • Two groups • Pre-hospital fibrinolysis (419); alteplase • PCI (421) • Primary endpoint: CEP (death, re-infarct, stroke) at 30 d

  26. Mortality benefit favouring TL group (trend) CEP favouring PCI group (trend)

  27. Trend (p = .29) Trend (p = .61) Mortality rates significantly lower than other trials

  28. CAPTIM: Discussion • Low mortality rate in TL group • Early TL, transfer to invasive center, liberal rescue angioplasty (25% patients rescue angioplasties), low risk patients • Benefit of early TL • Mortality reduction if treated < 2 h (57%) • 2.2 TL vs. 5.7 % PCI (p.04) • Well equipped ambulance • ACLS crew/physician on board

  29. Limitations to Generalizations… • 26 % of patients need rescue angioplasty • Only 4% of ambulance calls for CP are STEMI eligible for TL • ½ of patients with STEMI drive themselves to hospital • Physician in ambulance

  30. Transfer for Primary Angioplasty Versus Immediate Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis. Circulation 108. 2003 • 6 RCT’s identified from Jan ’85 – Sept ’02 • 3 significantly favour transfer for PCI and 3 non-significant or no trend • 2 limited by sample size, 1 a feasibility study, 1 hampered by recruitment • Primary endpoint: CEP • Excluded trials or arms of facilitated PCI

  31. NNT = 30 NS (with CAPTIM) RR = .76 p=.03(Exclude CAPTIM)

  32. NNT = 33 NNT = 86

  33. Conclusion: Effectiveness of Transport for PCI • Overall PCI probably the best option • BUT not always achievable • TL effective in early MI; > 6h largely ineffective; ? Very early TL as effective as PCI • With TL significant number of patients will need to go on to further angiography/plasty • Need to consider other issues surrounding transport • Safety • Timing/Distance • Availability

  34. Safety and Quality of Transport

  35. # of Patients Transported Failed to be Transported Deaths en Route Deaths within 1 h Adverse Events Maastricht 146 4 0 n/a 2 VF, 2 brady-arrhythmias Prague 201 n/a 0 n/a 2 VF; 2 worsening CHF Prague-2 425 4 (3 deaths, 1 worsening CHF) 2 n/a 3 VF arrest (resuscitated) Danami 559 8 0 1 8 VF; 13 advanced AV block Air- PANAMI 71 0 0 n/a 0 Total 1402 16 (1.1%) 2 (0.1%) 1 (0.07%) 32 (2.3%) 3.6 %

  36. Quality of PCI • Impact of Routine Duty Hours vs. Off Hours JACC 41(12). 2003 • 1,702 consecutive patients at one center • Failure rate: 3.8% (routine) vs. 6.9 % (off) p <.01 • Mortality rate (30d): 1.9 % vs. 4.2 % p <.01 • Relationship between volume and mortality JAMA 284(24). 2000 • NRMI database • Mortality rate PCI vs. TL: high volume 3.4 vs 5.4 % p<.001; intermediate 4.5 vs. 5.9 p <.001; low volume 6.2 vs. 5.9 % • More experienced operators; shorter door-balloon times

  37. Conclusions Regarding Safety/Quality • Transport appears to be safe • Quick and dirty vs. slow and clean • Quick and dirty: fast but only basic equipment • Slow and clean: fully equiped; slow deployment times • All studies to date some form of slow and clean • No studies look at safety of long transports • PRAGUE2 longest transports but highest death and adverse events • Impact of off hours and cath lab volumes likely to affect quality

  38. Is Timing Everything?

  39. Relationship of Symptom Onset to Balloon Time and Door to Balloon Time with Mortality in Patients Undergoing Angioplasty for AMI.JAMA 83(22). 2000 • Prospective observational study of data collected in the Second National Registry of MI • 27,080 consecutive patients with STEMI/ new LBBB • Only 2230 (8% of patients) underwent PCI within 60 min of presentation • In-hospital mortality rate 4.2 % • > 3 h mortality rate 8.5 % mortality

  40. Relationship of Symptom Onset to Balloon Time and Door to Balloon Time with Mortality in Patients Undergoing Angioplasty for AMI.JAMA 83(22). 2000 • Performed logistic regression to adjust for baseline differences • Door to balloon time greater than 2h 41 – 62 % increased risk of death • Confounding was serious concern in door to balloon times in this study • Shorter time: men, younger, non-DM • Propensity analysis: door to balloon time longer than 2h still increased risk of death (28 % vs. 41 – 62 %) • Did not find an increased mortality associated with prolonged Sx onset to balloon time

  41. Percutaneous Coronary InterventionVersus Fibrinolytic Therapy in AMI: Is Timing (Almost) Everything?AJC 92. 2003 • Meta-regression analysis of the Grines meta-analysis comparing PCI and TL • Assess the impact of time delay • Endpoints were 4-6 week incidence of death and CEP of death, re-infarction and stroke • As PCI related time delay increased, mortality reduction favouring PCI decreased • .94% reduction for every 10 minute delay • 2 strategies equal after PCI delay of 62 min • CEP equivalence occurred at 93 min

  42. Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Patients with Early, Intermediate and Late Presentation Treated by PCI and TL for AMI.EHJ 23. 2002 • 2635 patients in 10 RCT’s • Presentation delay associated with older age, female, DM, increased HR • CEP (death, re-infarction, stroke) at 30d for PCI vs. TL • Early (<2h) group: 5.8 vs. 12.5 % • Int. (2-4h) group: 8.6 vs. 14.2 % • Late (>4h) group: 7.7 vs. 19.4 % • With increase in time to presentation adverse events increase in TL group (p <.04) but not in the PCI group (p >.4)

  43. Conclusions Regarding Timing • PCI superior at all time points • AHA goal TL door-needle time < 30 min; > 6h ineffective • AHA goal PCI door-balloon time 90 min +/- 30 min • Evidence from transport trials supports feasibility with respect to timing • With increasing delay (60 – 90 min) for transport for PCI mortality benefit may be lost • ? Most beneficial group late presenters (>3 – 6h)

  44. Issues Closer to Home… • Limited availability of tertiary care centers in Canada (< 10 % of all hospitals) • Large geographic area • Substantial disparities in the quality of ambulance and pre-hospital services • Tertiary care center variability • Cost Effectiveness • $ 10,711 PCI vs. $13,664 TL

  45. Questions to Ask? • What is the time from Sx onset to medical contact? • What is the risk associated with this MI? • What are the risks of TL? • What are the risks of transport? • What is the time to PCI?