Optimal Revascularization Time in Transient STEMI

Patients admitted with transient ST elevation MI and later normalize completely (symptimos disappear before being treated) are those we normally say are “undergoing a non-ST elevation MI”. This is complex, because revascularization time remains nuclear, as is whether to treat them as STEMI or non-STEMI patients.

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of an immediate strategy, compared against a differed strategy, quantifying infarct size with cardiac magnetic resonance.

 

The study randomized 142 patients with transient ST elevation MI to immediate (as if it were primary PCI in persistent STEMI patients) mean 0.3 hours vs. invasive differed strategy (as non-STEMI patients) with mean 22.7 hours.



Read also: The Ten Commandments for the Fourth Universal Definition of Infarction.


Infarction size measured by CMR at day 4 after the event was small and similar between strategies.

 

Neither were there differences in terms of major cardiac events, a combination of death, reinfarction or revascularization at 30 days (2.9% vs. 2.8%, p=1.00).


Read also: Are Aortic Stenosis and Kidney Dysfunction Associated?


Only 4 patients in the deferred group (5.6%) required emergency intervention given their signs and symptoms while waiting the angiography.

 

Conclusion

Globally, infarct size in patients presenting transient ST elevation MI is small and revascularization strategy, whether immediate or differed, has no influence. Hard events at short term were low and similar between the groups.

 

Original title: Timing of revascularization in patients with transient ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized clinical trial.

Reference: Jorrit S. Lemkes et al. European Heart Journal (2019) 40, 283–291.

 


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

Is IVUS Always Necessary for Left Main Coronary Artery PCI?

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the unprotected left main coronary artery is a highly complex procedure because of the large amount of myocardium at...

Dual-Prep Registry: Atherectomy and IVL for Severe Coronary Calcification

Severe coronary calcification remains one of the most challenging scenarios in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although rotational or orbital atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL)...

Prehospital heparin in STEMI: A safe strategy associated with improved early reperfusion

Early reperfusion remains the main prognostic determinant in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Although primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment...

Plaque Ruptures in Non-Culprit Arteries: Follow-Up With Intravascular Imaging

Plaque rupture remains one of the most important pathophysiological mechanisms in acute coronary syndromes. However, not all ruptures manifest clinically as ischemia, myocardial infarction,...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img
Jornadas Guatemala 2026

Recent Articles

Supera vs. Eluvia at 3 Years in Severely Calcified Femoropopliteal Lesions

Severe calcification remains one of the main predictors of restenosis and the need for repeat revascularization following endovascular treatment of femoropopliteal disease. In this...

Is IVUS Always Necessary for Left Main Coronary Artery PCI?

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the unprotected left main coronary artery is a highly complex procedure because of the large amount of myocardium at...

Dual-Prep Registry: Atherectomy and IVL for Severe Coronary Calcification

Severe coronary calcification remains one of the most challenging scenarios in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although rotational or orbital atherectomy and intravascular lithotripsy (IVL)...