This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (40)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Revascularization  • Thrombolysis  • Cardiovascular System  • Surgery  • Surgical Interventions  • Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Cardiovascular Intervention  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Propensity Analysis

Mary Grzybowski, PhD, MPH; Elizabeth A. Clements, PharmD; Lori Parsons, BS; Robert Welch, MD; Anne T. Tintinalli, MD; Michael A. Ross, MD; Robert J. Zalenski, MD

JAMA. 2003;290:1891-1898.

Context  There are no definitive recommendations for the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in patients with ST-segment elevation who have contraindications to thrombolytic therapy. It is not clear whether, and the extent to which, immediate mechanical reperfusion (IMR) reduces in-hospital mortality in this population.

Objective  To determine whether IMR (defined as percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) is associated with a mortality benefit in patients with acute ST-segment elevation AMI who are eligible for IMR but have contraindications to thrombolytic therapy.

Design, Setting, and Patients  From June 1994 to January 2003, the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2, 3, and 4 enrolled 1 799 704 patients with AMI. A total of 19 917 patients with acute ST-segment elevation were eligible for IMR but had thrombolytic contraindications after excluding patients who were transferred in from or out to other facilities, patients who received intracoronary thrombolytics, and those who received no medications within 24 hours of arrival.

Main Outcome Measure  In-hospital mortality.

Results  Of the 19 917 patients, 4705 patients (23.6%) received IMR and 5173 patients (25.9%) died. In-hospital mortality rates in the IMR and non-IMR treated groups in the unadjusted analysis were 11.1%, representing 521 of 4705 patients, and 30.6%, representing 4652 of 15 212 patients, respectively, for a risk reduction of 63.7% (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.31). In a further analysis using a propensity matching score to reduce the effects of bias, 3905 patients who received IMR remained at lower risk for in-hospital mortality than 3905 matched patients (10.9% vs 20.1%, respectively, for a risk reduction of 45.8%; OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.43-0.55). Following a second logistic model applied to the matched groups to adjust for residual differences, a significant treatment effect persisted (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75).

Conclusions  In this population, IMR was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality after appropriate adjustments. Of those we studied who were eligible for IMR, 15 212 patients (76.4%) did not receive it. These results suggest that using IMR in patients with acute ST-segment elevation AMI and contraindications to thrombolytics should be strongly considered.

Author Affiliations: Department of Emergency Medicine (Drs Grzybowski, Clements, Welch, Ross, Tintinalli, and Zalenski), Center for Healthcare Effectiveness (Dr Grzybowski), and Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology (Dr Zalenski), Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Mich; Department of Pharmacy, Spectrum-Health Hospital, Grand Rapids, Mich (Dr Clements), Ovation Research Group, Chicago, Ill (Ms Parsons), Department of Emergency Medicine, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich (Dr Ross), and Section of Urgent Care, Department of Medicine, John D. Dingell Veterans Affairs Hospital, Detroit, Mich (Dr Zalenski).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects
Crump et al.
Biometrika 2009;96:187-199.
ABSTRACT  

Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)
Goodman et al.
Chest 2008;133:708S-775S.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Primary PCI in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Bogaty et al.
NEJM 2008;358:1751-1753.
FULL TEXT  

Development of Systems of Care for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients: Executive Summary
Jacobs et al.
Circulation 2007;116:217-230.
FULL TEXT  

Facilitated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Borden and Faxon
J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;48:1120-1128.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Case for Community Hospital Angioplasty
Wharton et al.
Circulation 2005;112:3509-3534.
FULL TEXT  

Acute PCI for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Is Later Better Than Never?
Gibbons and Grines
JAMA 2005;293:2930-2932.
FULL TEXT  

Times to Treatment in Transfer Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States: National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI)-3/4 Analysis
Nallamothu et al.
Circulation 2005;111:761-767.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Every Patient with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: What Stands in the Way?
Keeley and Grines
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:298-304.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-Elevation myocardial infarction--executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction)
Writing Committee Members et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;44:671-719.
FULL TEXT  

ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction--Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction)
Antman et al.
Circulation 2004;110:588-636.
FULL TEXT  

Primary Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction at Hospitals With No Surgery On-Site (the PAMI-No SOS study) versus transfer to surgical centers for primary angioplasty
Wharton et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1943-1950.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The year in interventional cardiology
O'Neill and Dixon
J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:875-890.
FULL TEXT  

Primary Coronary Intervention for Acute Myocardial Infarction
Keeley and Grines
JAMA 2004;291:736-739.
FULL TEXT  

JournalScan
Malik
Heart 2004;90:117-118.
FULL TEXT  

Cardiovascular News
SoRelle
Circulation 2003;108 :e9042-e9043.
FULL TEXT