Division of Cardiology (N.B., N.P., E.P., M.A., R.S., A.R., S.E.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (N.B., N.P., J.C., V.V., E.P., M.A., R.S., A.R., S.E.).
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Nov;13(11):e010027. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.120.010027. Epub 2020 Nov 10.
The optimal treatment strategy for treating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is unclear given the potential risk of occupational exposure during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We quantified the impact of different STEMI treatment strategies on patient outcomes and provider risk in context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Using a decision-analytic framework, we evaluated the effect of PPCI versus the pharmaco-invasive strategy for managing STEMI on 30-day patient mortality and individual provider infection risk based on presence of cardiogenic shock, suspected coronary territory, and presence of known or presumptive COVID-19 infection.
For patients with low suspicion for COVID-19, PPCI had mortality benefit over the pharmaco-invasive strategy, and the risk of cardiac catheterization laboratory provider infection remained very low (<0.25%) across all subgroups. For patients with presumptive COVID-19 with cardiogenic shock, PPCI offered substantial mortality benefit to patients relative to the pharmaco-invasive strategy (7.9% absolute decrease in 30-day mortality), but also greater risk of provider infection (2.3% absolute increase in risk of provider infection). For patients with presumptive COVID-19 with nonanterior STEMI without cardiogenic shock, PPCI offered a 0.4% absolute mortality benefit over the pharmaco-invasive strategy with a 0.2% greater absolute risk of provider infection, and the tradeoff between patient and provider risk with PPCI became more apparent in sensitivity analysis with more severe COVID-19 infections.
Usual care with PPCI remains the appropriate treatment strategy in the majority of cases presenting with STEMI in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, utilization of a pharmaco-invasive strategy in selected patients with STEMI with presumptive COVID-19 and low likelihood of mortality from STEMI and use of preventive strategies such as preprocedural intubation in high risk patients when PPCI is the preferred strategy may be reasonable to reduce provider risk of COVID-19 infection.
由于在进行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PPCI)时存在职业暴露的潜在风险,因此在 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间,治疗 ST 段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)的最佳治疗策略尚不清楚。我们量化了不同 STEMI 治疗策略对 COVID-19 大流行期间患者结局和医务人员风险的影响。
使用决策分析框架,我们评估了 PPCI 与药物介入策略治疗 STEMI 对 30 天患者死亡率和个体提供者感染风险的影响,根据心源性休克、可疑冠状动脉区域和已知或假定 COVID-19 感染的存在情况。
对于低疑似 COVID-19 患者,PPCI 与药物介入策略相比具有死亡率优势,并且在所有亚组中,心脏导管实验室提供者感染的风险仍然非常低(<0.25%)。对于推定 COVID-19 合并心源性休克的患者,PPCI 与药物介入策略相比为患者提供了显著的死亡率获益(30 天死亡率绝对降低 7.9%),但提供者感染的风险也更高(提供者感染风险绝对增加 2.3%)。对于推定 COVID-19 合并非前壁 STEMI 且无心源性休克的患者,PPCI 与药物介入策略相比提供了 0.4%的绝对死亡率获益,提供者感染的绝对风险增加了 0.2%,并且随着 COVID-19 感染的严重程度在敏感性分析中增加,患者和提供者之间的风险权衡变得更加明显。
在 COVID-19 大流行期间,大多数 STEMI 患者的常规治疗仍采用 PPCI。然而,对于推定 COVID-19 合并 STEMI 且 STEMI 死亡率低且低和使用药物介入策略的选定患者,以及当 PPCI 为首选策略时在高危患者中使用术前插管等预防策略可能是合理的,以降低医务人员感染 COVID-19 的风险。