Applications of thrombolytic therapy

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Return of Spontaneous Circulation Reduces the In-Hospital Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiac Arrest

Background and Objective

The role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiac arrest (CA) is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of PCI on the in-hospital mortality after ROSC in patients with AMI complicated by CA.

Methods

The clinical data of 66 consecutive patients with ROSC after CA caused by AMI from January 2006 to December 2015 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were collected. Among these patients, 21 underwent urgent PCI. We analyzed the clinical characteristics of the patients during hospitalization.

Results

The patients who underwent PCI had a higher rate of ST-segment elevation, and their initial recorded heart rhythms were more likely to have a shockable rhythm. Further, they had a high PCI success rate of 100%. The in-hospital mortality in the patients who did not undergo PCI was significantly higher than that in the patients who underwent PCI (68.9% vs 9.5%, P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that cardiogenic shock (odds ratio [OR], 3.537; 95% CI, 1.047–11.945; P=0.042) and Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤8 after ROSC (OR, 14.992; 95% CI, 2.815–79.843; P=0.002) were the independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality among the patients. Meanwhile, PCI was a protective factor against in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.063; 95% CI, 0.012–0.318; P=0.001). After propensity matching analysis, the results still showed that PCI (OR, 0.226; 95% CI, 0.028–1.814; P=0.0162) was a protective factor for in-hospital death.

Conclusion

The patients with ROSC after CA caused by AMI who underwent PCI had a lower in-hospital mortality than those who did not undergo PCI.

Expanding the role of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest

Special attention to post-cardiac arrest management is important to long-term survival and favorable neurological outcome in patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest. The use of emergent percutaneous coronary intervention in resuscitated patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction has long been considered an appropriate approach for coronary revascularization. Recent evidence suggests that other subsets of patients, namely, post-cardiac arrest patients without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, may benefit from immediate percutaneous coronary intervention following resuscitation. These findings could eventually have important implications for the care of resuscitated patients, including transportation of resuscitated patients to appropriate cardiac interventional facilities, access to treatment modalities such as therapeutic hypothermia, and coordinated care with cardiac catheterization laboratories.

Thrombolysis with streptokinase during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a single center experience and review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

To report our experience with use of thrombolysis with streptokinase during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with cardiac arrest due to myocardial infarction.

DESIGN

A case series.

METHODS

Thrombolytic therapy (streptokinase) was administered during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of 4 patients with suspected myocardial infarction as the cause of cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

3 of the 4 patients survived and were discharged from the hospital without any major complications or neurological sequela.

CONCLUSION

Thrombolysis with streptokinase during cardiopulmonary resuscitation of patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction is associated with reduced mortality and favorable neurological outcome.

International multicentre trial protocol to assess the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the Thrombolysis in Cardiac Arrest (TROICA) Study

Prehospital cardiac arrest has been associated with a very poor prognosis. Acute myocardial infarction and massive pulmonary embolism are the underlying causes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 50-70% of patients. Although fibrinolysis is an effective treatment strategy for both myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism, clinical experience for this therapy performed during resuscitation has been limited owing to the anticipated risk of severe bleeding complications. The TROICA study is planned as one of the largest randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of prehospital thrombolytic therapy in cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac origin. Approximately 1000 patients with cardiac arrest will be randomized at approximately 60 international study centres to receive either a weight-adjusted dose of tenecteplase or placebo after the first dose of a vasopressor. Patients can be included if they are at least 18 years, presenting with a witnessed cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac origin, and if either basic life support had started within 10 min of onset and had been performed up to 10 min or advanced life support is started within 10 min of onset of cardiac arrest. Primary endpoint of the study is the 30-day survival rate, and the coprimary endpoint is hospital admission. Secondary endpoints are the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival after 24 h, survival to hospital discharge, and neurological performance. Safety endpoints include major bleeding complications and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage.

Safety of thrombolysis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

The prognosis is generally poor for patients who experience a cardiac arrest. The most common causes of sudden cardiac arrest are massive pulmonary embolism (PE) and acute myocardial infarction (MI). While thrombolysis is a first-line treatment option in massive PE and acute MI, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been regarded as a relative contraindication for thrombolysis because of the anticipated bleeding risk caused by traumatic cardiocompressions. However, an increasing number of case reports and clinical studies on thrombolysis during and after CPR highlight an increased frequency of the return of spontaneous circulation and a better neurological outcome of surviving patients. These effects are mainly due to the thrombolysis of macroscopic blood clots and the amelioration of microcirculatory reperfusion. This article reviews case reports and clinical studies of thrombolysis during and shortly after CPR in order to estimate the risk of severe bleeding events caused by CPR in association with thrombolysis compared with CPR without thrombolysis. Although thrombolysis per se can cause severe and potentially fatal haemorrhage, there is no evidence that severe bleeding events occur more often when thrombolysis is combined with cardiocompressions. In addition, by far the majority of bleeding complications can be treated effectively. Thus, in many cases, the possible benefit of thrombolysis during CPR seems to outweigh the potential risks. However, there may be a publication bias in some case reports and studies towards reporting successful rather than unsuccessful CPRs. In addition, not enough controlled clinical trials have yet been conducted. Therefore, data from large randomised, multicentre studies are needed to definitely answer the question of the relationship between safety and efficacy of this promising treatment option. We conclude that the currently available data do not indicate that thrombolysis contributes to a significant increase in bleeding complications when administered during CPR.