Open Access

Debate: Should the elderly receive thrombolytic therapy, or primary angioplasty, for acute myocardial infarction? The case for primary angioplasty

Trials20001:146

DOI: 10.1186/cvm-1-3-146

Received: 10 October 2000

Accepted: 10 November 2000

Published: 4 December 2000

Abstract

As the population ages the number of elderly patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) will continue to increase. There has been no head-to-head trial of thrombolytic therapy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this patient cohort, but there is evidence that favors primary PCI. Most elderly patients are candidates for primary PCI, but many have contraindications to thrombolytic therapy. Hemorrhagic complications are more common in the elderly, and many of these patients present with conditions in which thrombolytic agents have decreased efficacy, such as heart failure or prior bypass surgery. PCI can also obviate the need for further risk stratification in most patients.

Keywords

elderly myocardial infarction primary angioplasty

Introduction

Patients older than 70 years remain one of the fastest growing populations. In the USA alone this group increased from 21.1 million in 1990 to over 25 million in 1999, and is projected to reach nearly 36 million people by the year 2020. With this in mind, the number of elderly patients presenting with an ST-segment elevation AMI will continue to increase. Despite this, there have been no head-to-head trials of thrombolytic therapy versus PCI that are specifically designed for this patient population. However, there are indications from previous trials that primary PCI is likely to be the superior therapy.

Elderly patients have a documented increase in bleeding (including intracranial hemorrhage) with thrombolytic therapy. In fact, age greater than 65 years has been associated with an odds ratio of 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.4-3.5) for intracranial hemorrhage as compared with younger patients [1,2,3]. The percentage of women is higher than that of men among elderly patients, and hemorrhagic complications are known to be higher in women (and even greater if their weight is <70 kg). Also, any previous hemorrhagic stroke, which is more common in elderly patients, is a very strong contraindication to thrombolytic therapy [4].

Elderly patients are likely to have more contraindications to thrombolytic therapy, more comorbid conditions, and more adverse hemodynamic and angiographic predictors of poor outcome than younger patients. A recent pooled analysis of 3032 patients enroled in primary PCI trials [5] revealed that patients older than 75 years were more likely to have a history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, previous coronary revascularization (PCI or bypass surgery), peripheral vascular disease, stroke, or chronic obstructive lung disease. At angiography they had lower left ventricular ejection fraction, higher left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, and more two-vessel or three-vessel coronary disease. In addition, these patients were significantly more likely to present with an infarction of Killip class II or higher.

Studies including elderly acute myocardial infarction patients

Many of the early trials of thrombolytic therapy intentionally excluded patients aged 75 years or older because of a perceived increase in bleeding and overall mortality [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Later trials began to include these patients, and especially those that compared thrombolytic therapy with primary PCI, but the average age in many of these trials remained approximately 60 years. In the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)1 trial of four regimens of thrombolytic therapy [13], the overall mortality rate was 7.0%. However, the 30-day mortality rates for patients aged 65-74, 74-85 and >85 years were 9.5, 19.6 and 30.3%, respectively [14]. In an analysis of the GUSTO IIb trial, Holmes et al [15] showed that, for each 10-year patient group (50-59 years, 60-69 years, etc), outcome was always superior with angioplasty as compared with tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA). In the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI)-1 trial [16], the benefit of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) over t-PA was marked in patients aged more than 65 years, with a reduction in the 6-month composite endpoint of in-hospital death or reinfarction being reduced from 20 to 8.6% (P < 0.05).

Recently, Thiemann et al [17] reported an analysis of 7864 patients (aged 65-86 years) who were eligible for thrombolytic therapy (presentation <12 h from symptom onset, ST-segment elevation ≥ 1.5 mm [limb leads] or ≥ 2 mm [precordial leads] in two or more contiguous leads; left bundle branch block was excluded). That study was designed to compare the risks and benefits of intravenous thrombolysis in patients aged 65-75 years with those in patients aged 76-86 years. Of note, over 50% of the patients in each group who met initial electrocardiographic criteria were excluded for various reasons, with 12% of the younger patients and 17% of the older patients having absolute contraindications to thrombolytic therapy. Intravenous thrombolysis was administered in 3861 out of 5191 (74%) of patients in the 65-75 years age group and in 1607 out of 2673 (60%) of the 76-86 years age group. At 30 days there was a survival benefit in the younger patients (hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.95) and worsened survival in the older group (hazard ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.58), with mortality rates reduced from 9.8 to 6.8% in the younger group but increased from 15.4 to 18% in the older group (Fig. 1). On further analysis, death began to increase with thrombolysis after age 74.3 years. Thiemann et al speculated that increased rates of intracranial hemorrhage and cardiac rupture in the older patients may explain the lack of benefit of thrombolytic therapy in these persons.
Figure 1

Effect of treatment with thrombolytic therapy for ST-segment elevation AMI by age group. HR, hazard ratio. Data from Thiemann et al [17].

Selected patient subsets

With regard to prior coronary bypass surgery, several studies have shown that thrombotic occlusion of a saphenous vein graft is the primary mechanism of AMI in these patients. Thrombolytic therapy is often ineffective because of poor flow in the graft (preventing delivery of the thrombolytic agent) as well as the presence of giant thrombus. Primary PCI is successful in up to 90% of these patients because the obstructing thrombus can be mechanically disrupted [18,19].

As mentioned above, older patients are more likely to present with congestive heart failure. Systemic thrombolytic therapy has not been shown to provide a survival benefit in these patients. In the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptokinasi nell'Infarcto Miocardico (GISSI)-1 [20] and International Study Group (ISG) [21] trials, 17-23% of patients presented in Killip class II and 2-4% in class III. At 6-month follow-up in the GISSI-1 trial, mortality rates were 27% versus 29% for placebo in class II patients, and 50% versus 53% for placebo in class III patients (class IV patients were excluded). Likewise, no survival benefit for either group was seen in the ISG trial. It is theorized that poor cardiac pump function results in decreased coronary perfusion, making the thrombolytic agents unable to penetrate the occlusive thrombus.

Advantages of primary percutaneous coronary intervention

In a pooled analysis of the PAMI-1, Zwolle and Mayo Clinic trials, O'Neill et al [22] showed an increasing benefit of primary PTCA over t-PA with increasing patient age (Fig. 2). This is probably due to the fact that primary PCI can restore Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow in over 90% of patients, as opposed to 60-70% of patients treated with thrombolytic therapy. Data from primary PCI trials [5] revealed a mortality rate of approximately 10% in patients older than 75 years, which is lower than that in the thrombolytic trials.
Figure 2

Mortality by age group in selected trials of PTCA versus thrombolytic therapy. Modified from O'Neill et al [22].

Emergent catheterization not only defines the status of the infarct-related artery (patent or not, TIMI flow grade), but is extremely useful for risk stratification. Significant left main and multivessel disease can be delineated and hemodynamics can be assessed. An intra-aortic balloon pump can be inserted immediately if required. Noninvasive testing can usually be averted and hospital discharge can be accelerated, resulting in significant cost savings.

As a result of perceived or real contraindications, fewer than 10% of elderly patients with ST-segment elevation AMI receive thrombolytic therapy [23]. Primary PCI is not as readily available as thrombolytic therapy in all locations, but there are emerging data [24] that show that primary PCI can be performed safely in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery. This may allow many more patients access to immediate catheter-based reperfusion.

Future insights

Of course, what is most needed is a head-to-head, prospective study of thrombolytic therapy versus primary PCI in elderly patients. The Senior PAMI trial will enrol 530 elderly AMI patients, who will be randomized to primary PCI or thrombolytic therapy (t-PA or rPA) with a primary composite end-point of death or disabling stroke at 30 days. Multiple secondary end-points will be measured at 1, 6, and 12 months.

There may also be a role for combination therapy, in which reduced-dose thrombolytic therapy (with or without a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist) is administered in the field or in the receiving emergency room, with subsequent transfer for PCI ('facilitated angioplasty') [25].

Conclusion

As the population increases worldwide, the number of elderly patients who present with an ST-segment elevation AMI will continue to grow. There are no head-to-head trials of primary PCI versus thrombolytic therapy in elderly patients. However, data from previous trials that have included elderly patients suggest that primary PCI is safer and is probably more effective in such cohorts. The bleeding risk associated with PCI is lower, and PCI appears to be more effective in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting and those with congestive heart failure, groups that are more common among elderly patients. Primary PCI allows those patients who are not eligible for thrombolytic therapy to receive reperfusion therapy, is useful for early risk stratification, and usually obviates the need for noninvasive testing. Early discharge, with resultant lower hospital charges, is also possible in many cases. Access to primary PCI is expanding, and continued technical and therapeutic advances will allow for increased distribution and utilization of this therapy among elderly patients. The ongoing Senior PAMI trial will provide the first randomized, controlled trial evidence of thrombolytic therapy versus PCI in elderly patients.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Cardiology, Brooke Army Medical Center
(2)
Division of Cardiology, William Beaumont Hospital

References

  1. Simoons ML, Maggioni AP, Knatterud G, Leimberger JD, De Jaegere P, van Domburg R, Boersma E, Franzosi MG, Callif R, Schroder R, Braunwald E: Individual risk assessment for intracranial hemorrhage during thrombolytic therapy. Lancet. 1993, 342: 1523-1528.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Mark DB, Hlatky MA, Califf RM, Naylor CD, Lee KL, Armstrong PW, Barbash G, White H, Simoons ML, Nelson CL, Clapp-Channing N, Knight JD, Harrell FE, Simes J, Topol EJ: Cost effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator as compared with streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1995, 332: 1418-1424. 10.1056/NEJM199505253322106.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. De Jaegere PP, Arnold AA, Balk AH, Simoons ML: Intracranial hemorrhage in association with thrombolytic therapy: Incidence and clinical predictive factors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992, 19: 289-294.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ryan TJ, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Braniff BA, Brooks NH, Califf RM, Hillis LD, Hiratzka LF, Rapaport E, Riegel BJ, Russell RO, Smith EE, Weaver WD: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996, 28: 1328-1428. 10.1016/S0735-1097(96)00392-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. DeGeare VS, Stone GW, Grines L, Brodie BR, Cox DA, Garcia E, Wharton TP, Boura JA, O'Neill WW, Grines CL: Angiographic and clinical characteristics associated with increased in-hospital mortality in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous intervention (a pooled analysis of the primary angioplasty in myocardial infarction trials). Am J Cardiol. 2000, 86: 30-34. 10.1016/S0002-9149(00)00824-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesebro JH, Knatterud G, Roberts R, Borer J, Cohen LS, Dalen J, Dodge HT, Francis CK, Hillis D, Ludbrook P, Markis JE, Mueller H, Passamani ER, Powers ER, Rao AK, Robertson T, Ross A, Ryan TJ, Sobel BE, Willerson J, Williams DO, Zaret BL, Braunwald E: Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial, phase I: a comparison between intravenous tissue plasminogen activator and intravenous streptokinase. Circulation. 1987, 76: 142-154.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Wilcox RG, Olsson CG, Skene AM, Von Der Lippe, Jensen G, Hampton JR: Trial of tissue plasminogen activator for mortality reduction in acute myocardial infarction: Anglo-Scandinavian study of early thrombolysis (ASSET). Lancet. 1988, ii: 525-530. 10.1016/S0140-6736(88)92656-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. AIMS trial study group: Effect of intravenous APSAC on mortality after acute myocardial infarction: preliminary report of a placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 1988, i: 545-549.Google Scholar
  9. Anderson JL, Sorenson SG, Moreno FL, Hackworthy RA, Browne KF, Dale HT, Leya F, Dangoisse V, Eckerson HW, Marder VJ: Multicenter patency trial of intravenous anistreplase compared with streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1991, 83: 126-140.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Califf RM, Topol EJ, Stack RS, Ellis SG, George BS, Kereiakes DJ, Samaha JK, Worley SJ, Anderson JL, Harrelson-Woodlief L, Wall TC, Phillips HR, Abbottsmith CW, Candela RJ, Flanagan WH, Sasahara AA, Mantell SJ, Lee KL: Evaluation of combination thrombolytic therapy and timing of catheterization in acute myocardial infarction. Results of thrombolysis and angioplasty in myocardial infarction-phase 5 randomized trial. Circulation. 1991, 83: 1543-1556.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Wall TC, Califf RM, George BS, Ellis SG, Samaha JK, Kereiakes DJ, Worley SJ, Sigmon K, Topol EJ: Accelerated plasminogen activator dose regimens for coronary thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992, 19: 482-489.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cannon CP, McCabe CH, Diver DJ, Herson S, Greene RM, Shah PK, Sequeira RF, Leya F, Kirshenbaum JM, Magorien RD, Palmeri ST, Davis V, Gibson MC, Poole WK, Braunwald E: Comparison of front-loaded recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator, anistreplase and combination thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 4 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994, 24: 1602-1610.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. The GUSTO Investigators: An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1993, 329: 673-682. 10.1056/NEJM199309023291001.Google Scholar
  14. White HD, Barbash GI, Califf RM, Simes RJ, Granger CB, Weaver WD, Kleiman NS, Aylward PE, Gore JM, Vahanian A, Lee KL, Ross AM, Topol EJ: Age and outcome with contemporary thrombolytic therapy. Results from the GUSTO-I trial. Circulation. 1996, 94: 1826-1833.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmes DR, White HD, Pieper KS, Ellis SG, Califf RM, Topol EJ: Effect of age on outcome with primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999, 33: 412-419. 10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00579-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Stone GW, Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, Rothbaum D, O'Keefe J, Hartzler GO, Overlie P, Donohue B, Chelliah N, Timmis GC, Vlietstra R, Strzelecki M, Puchrowicz-Ochocki S, O'Neill WW: Predictors of in-hospital and 6-month outcome after acute myocardial infarction in the reperfusion era: the primary angioplasty in myocardial infarction (PAMI) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995, 25: 370-377. 10.1016/0735-1097(94)00367-Y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Thiemann DR, Coresh J, Schulman SP, Gerstenblith G, Oetgen WJ, Powe NR: Lack of benefit for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with myocardial infarction who are older than 75 years. Circulation. 2000, 101: 2239-2246.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Grines CL, Booth DC, Nissen SE, Gurley JC, Bennett KA, O'Connor WN, DeMaria AN: Mechanism of acute myocardial infarction in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting and therapeutic implications. Am J Cardiol. 1990, 65: 1292-1296.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Stone GW, Brodie BR, Griffin JJ, Grines L, Boura J, O'Neill WW, Grines CL: Clinical and angiographic outcomes in patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft surgery treated with primary balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000, 35: 605-610. 10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00605-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bates ER, Topol EJ: Limitations of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction complicated by congestive heart failure and cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991, 18: 1077-1084.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. The International Study Group: In-hospital mortality and clinical course of 20,891 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction randomised between alteplase and streptokinase with or without heparin. Lancet. 1990, 336: 71-75. 10.1016/0140-6736(90)91590-7.Google Scholar
  22. O'Neill WW, Menko J, Gibbons RJ, Holmes DR, Timmis GC, Sachs D, Grines CL, Zijlistra F: Lessons from the pooled outcome of the PAMI, ZWOLLE and Mayo Clinic randomized trials of primary angioplasty versus thrombolytic therapy of acute myocardial infarction. J Invest Cardiol. 1998, 10: 4A-10A.Google Scholar
  23. Tiefenbrunn AJ, Chandra NC, French WJ, Gore JM, Rogers WJ: Clinical experience with primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty compared with alteplase (recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator) in patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report from the second national registry of myocardial infarction (NRMI-2). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998, 31: 1240-1245. 10.1016/S0735-1097(98)00094-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Wharton TP, Johnston JD, Turco MA, Souther J, Lew DC, Billnoski W, Singhi SK, Graham M, Grines L, Weaver WD, Grines CL: Primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction with no surgery on site: outcomes, core angiographic analysis and six-month follow-up in the 500 patient prospective PAMI-No S.O.S. registry [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999, 33(suppl A): 352A-Google Scholar
  25. Ross AM, Coyne KS, Reiner JS: A randomized trial comparing primary angioplasty with a strategy of short-acting thrombolysis and immediate planned rescue angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: the PACT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999, 34: 1963-1965. 10.1016/S0735-1097(99)00456-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Current Controlled Trials Ltd 2000