Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘streptokinase’

Which is  the most important factor that determines thrombolysis failure in STEMI  ?

  1. Thrombus load .
  2. Drug efficiency
  3. Time delay
  4. Presence of a mechanical lesion
  5. Hemodynamic instability

Answer : 3 .(Though all 5 factors operate )

Failed thrmbolysis occur in about 40-50% after streptokinase and slightly less with TPA   and TNK-TPA . Delayed arrival and late thrombolysis are  most common cause of failed thrombolysis. As the time flies , the  myocardium gets damaged and the intra coronary  thrombus gets organised .Both these processes make delayed thrombolysis a futile exercise.

               Not all STEMI patients have large thrombus burden. There need to be a critical load of thrombus for thrombolytic to be effective

Some may have a major mechanical lesion in the form of plaque fissure, prolapse and it simply blocks the coronary artery mechanically like a boulder on the road  . The poor  streptokinse  or the rich Tenekteplace !  nothing can move this boulder .The only option here is emergency PCI .

How will you know when the patient  arrives in ER with STEMI whether his/ her coronary artery is blocked with soft thrombus or hard mechanical boulder ?

It is impossible to know.That’s why primary PCI has a huge advantage.  But still thrombolysis is useful as some amount of thrombus will be there in all patients with STEMI.Lysing this will provide at least a  trickle of  blood flow that will jeep the myocardium viable and enable us to take for early PCI.

Final message

The commonest cause for thrombolytic failure is the time of administration and the degree of underlying mechanical lesion  . So  it does not make sense  to blame  streptokinase always !

Read Full Post »

                                     Hypertension is considered a major cardiovascular risk factor.Hypertension  can have multiple physiological and pathological effects on heart . The common response to  raised arterial pressure is the hypertrophy of the left ventricle ( LVH). This can increase the risk of heart failure in few ( Mainly diastolic failure)  It is a leading cause for stroke  and   less often a  coronary event.

What links Hypertension and  coronary artery disease

                                           Coronary artery disease is almost synonymous with atherosclerosis. There is no separate entity called hypertensive coronary artery disease. But HT can accelerate the process of atherosclerosis. It is widely understood, hypertension can cause  physical endothelial damage and functional impairment of endothelial function.The physical damage ie enothelial disruption , or erosion is a very uncommon phenomenon . So currently  there is sufficient clinical experience  HT is considered dangerous for coronary artery only if it is with the  company of diabetes and hyperlipidemia. (This will seem controversial as it is against the findings of iconic Framingham trial!)

What the medical community refers to hypertension , may not be really so inside  for the coronary arteries.

                                             The relationship between brachial cuff blood pressure and the intra coronary pressure has very little linear relationship. So one should recognise it is the intra coronary hypertension that has a immediate impact on the coronary events. Now only , we are beginning to understand the complexities  of the relationship between HT and CAD. If we analyse a series of individuals HT per se is not a very serious risk factor for CAD* , but it is a number one risk factor for stroke. 

Why HT in isolation  often result in stroke , rather than a MI ?

While HT  is notoriously common to result  intracerebral hemorrhage, the same HT  would not cause  intramyocardial bleeds . Why ?

What is protecting the myocardium against this complication ?

                                      The exact mechanism  is not clear.Acute surges of blood pressure can increase the risk of stroke many times  but  rarely precipitate  a coronary event(  But may cause a LVF) . The reasons could be the coronary endothelial shearing stress is less than the cerebral blood vessels.Both cerebral and coronary circulation has  auto regulatory mechanism . The coronary auto regulation is more robust in that it does not allow  intra coronary pressures to reach critical levels .There is no clinically relevant intra myocardial hemorrhage reported  even during malignant hypertension.

*But a  high intra coronary pressure can sometimes  result in spontaneous coronary dissection and plaque fissure .Lipid mediated injury is vey much facilitated in a high pressure environment.

Has Controlling blood pressure  to optimal levels  , reduced the overall CAD morbidity and mortality ?

                    The answer is yes, ( But not an emphatic yes ! ) Some studies had been equivocal. It is very difficult to say , how much benefit is attributable to BP reduction  per se  and   how much is attributable to indirect effect on atherosclerosis prevention.

Hypertension during ACS

                            High blood pressure during an episode of unstable angina or STEMI can increase the myocardial oxygen demand and worsen the ischemia. It requires optimal control with nitroglycerine ( Preferably ) or beta blocker and ACE inhibitors.Even though HT is commonly associated  with ACS,  one can not be sure the ACS is preciptated by HT. Many times the sympathetic surge during an ACS keeps the blood pressure high.It is a common experience the blood pressure suddenly dropping to normal or hypotensive levels once the pain and anxiety is controlled.

Hypertension during thrombolysis

                           High blood pressure is a relative contraindication for thrombolysis.It need to be emphasised here, It is the  the fear of stroke that make  it contraindicated .The heart can tolerate  thrombolytic agents delivered at high BP .In fact logically ,  hemodynamically and also  practically it is obseved , thrombolytic agents administered at relatively high blood pressure (140-160 systolic) has better thrombolysis than a patient who is lysed at 100mmhg.

                       The coronary pressure head which contain the thrombolytic agent (streptokinase and others ) need to have pressure jet effect on the thrombus.So the  mean coronary perfusion pressure becomes  a critical determinant of success of thrombolysis.

                            It is a paradox of sorts , very high blood pressures are a relative contraindication for thrombolysis and at the same time normal pressure patients fare less well to thrombolysis.

 Final  message

                        Hypertension continues to be a major cardiovascular risk factor.It has direct and indirect effects on the heart.Generally HT is more of a risk factor for stroke than CAD.A slightly high BP ( Just around the  upper limits of normal or just above it ) has a hemodynamic advantage during thrombolysis.(Class C evidence )

Read Full Post »

 

 Rescue thrombolysis in acute   myocardial   Infarction  

 *Venkatesan sangareddi ,Madras medical college,Chennai.India

 

 

   Back ground  Failed thrombolysisin acute myocardial infarction occurs in 30-40% of patients. The incidence of progressive pathological remodelling and cardiac failure is high in these patients. The approach to the patient with failed thrombolysis is generally considered to be catheter based and the outcome is not clear. Bleeding can be troublesome in patients, taken for interventional procedures in the immediate post thrombolytic state. The option of repeat thrombolysis has not been studied widely and is not popular among cardiologists.

Methods:We present our experience with six patients (Age 42-56, M-6, F-0) who were thrombolysed for failed first thrombolysis. All had anterior MI and had received either urokinse or streptokinase (between four to nine hours) after the onset of chest pain. All of them had persistent ST elevation, angina not responsive to maximal doses of IV NTG and beta blockers. The initial thrombolysis was deemed to have failed. Repeat thrombolysis with streptokinase (15 lakhs) was given between 16 and 24 th hour. The clinical outcome following the second thrombolysis was rewarding. It relieved the angina, ST segment elevation came down by 50% and coronary angiogram done at 2-4 weeks showed complete IRA patency in four out of six patients. The factors responsible for failed thrombolysis is complex and multifactorial. A logical explanation from the fundamentals of clinical pharmacology would suggest that a common cause of failure of any drug is due to a inadequate first dose.

Conclusion :We conclude that repeat (Rescue) thrombolysis can be an effective medical intervention for failed thrombolysis in AMI.

Personal perspective                  

                             Repeat  thrombolysis for failed ( initial ) thrombolysis  is still   considered  a  fantasy treatment  by most of the cardiologists !  The utility and efficacy of this modality of  treatment (Rescue thrombolyis ) , will never be known to humanity , as planning  such a  study , in a large population  would  promptly be  called unethical by the modern day cardiologists.

                     While a cathlab based cardiologist  take on the lesion head on with multiple attempts  , it is an irony , poor  thrombolytic agents are given only one shot  and if failed in the first attempt,  it is doomed to be a  failure for ever.Currently,  the incidence of  failed thromolysis could be up to a whooping 50 %  .There has not been much scientific initiative  to enhance the efficacy of these drugs.

                            Common sense and logic would suggest it  is the  inadequate first dose ,  improper delivery , pharmacokinetics is   the major cause of failure of action of  a drug in clinical therapeutics.

If the first  dose is not working ,  always think about another  incremental dose if found safe to administer.

Can we increase the dose of thrombolytic agents  as we like ? Will it not increase the bleeding risk to dangerous levels ?

This is a clinical trial  question.

  • In patients with prosthetic valve thrombosis and acute pulmonary embolism we have safety data of administering of  1 lakh units for an hour for up to 48 hours.

Can  the same regimen be tried in STEMI if the initial thrombolysis has  failed  and emergency intervention is not possible  ?

Logic would say yes . Unfortunately we can’t go with logic alone in medicine .We need scientific data ( with or without logic ! ).But now ,  as we realise common sense is also a integral part of therapeutics  It is called as level 3 evidence / expert consensus by AHA/ACC .

Applying  mind , to all relevant issues ,  continuous streptokinase infusion 1 lakh/hour for 24-48 hours in patients with failed thrombolysis can indeed be an option,  especially when the patient is sinking and  no immediate catheter based intervention  possible .This study question is open to all researchers , and may be tested in a scientific setting if feasible.

Read Full Post »

Answer: Do  coronary angiogram  for all patients  who had suffered from an acute myocardial infarction* ( Forget about all those mulitpage ACC/AHA  guidelines !).

For an  interventional cardiologist ,  it is often  considered a crime to  follow a conservative  approach !

*Caution This one line guideline is not based on scientific fact  but reality based . Ideally one should identify  high risk subsets among the patients who had an AMI .Patients who had complications during the MI get immediate CAG. Others need  a focused LV function asessment ,  pre discharge  sub maximal excercise stress test or perfusion studies .But this concept has been  virtually replaced by pre discharge coronary angiogram for all ,  in many  of the centres in the world.

Read Full Post »

Differential response of thrombolysis between left and right coronary system

  • Thrombolysis is the specific treatment for acute myocardial infarction. ( Privileged few , get primary PCI))
  • Failed thrombolysis occurs in significant number of patients ( 30-40%).
  • Persistent ST elevation  120 minutes after thrombolysis is best indicator of failed thrombolysis.
  • It has been a consistent observation  failed  thromolysis  is more frequent in anterior   or LAD myocardial infarction.

In a simple study we have documented  patients  with inferior MI  rarely had persistent ST elevation and thrombolysis  was   successful in vast majority  of  patients  ( Except in few patients associated lateral MI)

 

The mechanism of better thrombolysis in right coronary artery  is simple.The success of thrombolysis , apart from early time window , is directly correlated with pressure head  and the duration of contact between the thrombolytic agent and the thrombus. In right coronary circulation the  blood flow is continuous ,  occurs  both in systole and diastole that facilitates the maximum delivery of the thrombolytic agent . Further there is a favorable  pressure gradient  across RV myocardium  as the transmural occluding pressure across RV is considerably less then LV myocardium.

This paper was presented in the  “Annual cardiological society of India scientific sessions”

at Chennai, Tamil Nadu.India December 2000

Click to down load PPT full presentation

Read Full Post »

                                  Indication for thrombolysis in ST elevation MI  is mainly determined by clinical and ECG features. ST elevation of more than 1mm in two consecutive leads with a clinical suspicion of acute coronary event demands immediate thrombolysis.

                                 Early repolarisation syndrome(ERS) is a  is typical mimicker of STEMI . In ERS , ST segment elevation occurs in many leads especially precardial .This entity is estimated to occur in nearly 3-5% of population where a genetic variation in the potassium channel activation is reported.

                              If they  land in ER with some sort of chest pain , chances are high for labelling  them as ACS . It is not uncommon for  CCU physicians  to  witness  an  ERS being lysed . Even in many of the land mark trials (ISIS ) there has been many inappropriate thrombolysis , recognised later on.

What can really happen if you thromolyse them inadvertently ?

Generally nothing happens . But they are exposed to the risk of thromolysis. The ECG changes persist. And troponin will be negative and  echocardiogram will not reveal any wall motion defect.

Are we legally liable if a patient  with ERS was thrombolysed and he ends up with a bleeding complication like stroke ?

                        While the physician may feel guilty , there is no reasons for him to feel so.The guidelines are kept little lineant  for  the indication for thromolysis. When we are promoting  a strategy of early  thrombolyis  on a population based approach  in STEMI ,  there is bound to have a overlap with normality .The benefits out of early thrombolysis for eligible  patients for outweigh the few inappropriate thromolysis.

When you want to catch  a   real criminal  it is unavoidable,  one gets hold of all suspected criminals before letting them free . Unfortunately  in this exercise , some of the innocent  might experience   intimidation or even a injury  at the hands of law enforcers.

                               Similarly if a patient with ERS develop a severe esophageal spasm and typical  angina like chest pain he is absolutely certain to receive thrombolysis. (Troponin, CPK come later , and the results never veto the clinical and ECG criteria ,except probably in LBBB) .Many times critical  time dependent decisions are prone for errors in CCU.   So it may be  unscientific to ask why an ERS was  thrombolysed !

 How can one prevent inadvertent thrombolysis in ERS ?

                            Always ask for the previously recorded ECGs .If it is available and  look exactly similar to the current ECG  chances are unlikely  for ACS. In ERS ST segment is generally concavity upwards . ACC/AHA  guideline for STEMI  ,is  aware of this fact , but still  advices thrombolysis for all ST elevation irrespective of the morphology of ST segment elevation. This is propably intentional,   not  to incorporate morphology cirteria of ST elevation  for thromolysis .It would potentially  make many true STEMIs  diagnosed falsely  as ERS and deny thrombolysis.

 

What is the latest news about ERS ?

                       Now data are coming up, ERS is not entirely benign condition.Some of them ( Even a fraction of ERS population could be a significant number) can have a overlap between Brugada syndrome and they  could be prone for dangerous ventricular arrhythmia when challanged with ischemic or other stress.

Read Full Post »

              Intra coronary thrombosis is the sine qua non of acute coronary syndrome ( Both STEMI and NSTEMI.) But thrombolysis is the specific therapy in STEMI and is contraindicated in NSTEMI/UA.

Why is this apparent paradox ? What is basic differnce between UA and AMI ?

In STEMI there is a sudden & total occlusion of a coronary artery usually by a thrombus with or without a plaque .The immediate aim is to open up the blood vessel . Every minute is important as myocardium undergoes  a continuous process ischemic necrosis. So thrombolysis (or more specifically fibrinolysis should be attempted immediately) .The other option is primary angioplasty,  which will not be discussed here.

The thrombus in STEMI  is RBC &  fibrin rich and often called a red clot. Number of fibrinolytic agents like streptokinase, Tissue palsminogen activator,(TPA) Reteplace, Tenekteplace etc have been tested and  form the cornerstone of STEMI management.The untoward effect of stroke  during  thrombolysis  is well recognised , but usully the risk benefit ratio favors thrombolyis in most situations except in very elderly and previous history of stroke or bleeding disorder.

Unstable angina is a  close companion of STEMI . Many times it precedes STEMI often called preinfarction angina. During this phase blood flow in the coronary artery  becomes sluggish gradually,and patients develop  angina at rest .But unlike STEMI there is never a total occlusion and myocardium  is viable but ischemic,  and emergency salvaging of myocardium is not a therapeutic aim but prevention of MI becomes an aim. It is a paradox of sorts ,  even though thrombus is present in  UA ,  It has been learnt by experience thrombolytic agents are not useful in preventing an MI .

 

Why  thrombolysis is not useful in UA ?

1.In unstable angina  mechanical obstruction in the form of plaque fissure/rupture is more common than completely occluding thrombus. So lysis becomes less important.

2. Even if the thrombus is present , it is often intra plaque  or intra lesional and the  luminal  projection of thrombus is reduced  and hence thromolytic agents have limited area to act.

3.Further in UA/NSTEMI since it is a slow and gradual occlusion (Unlike sudden & total occlusion in STEMI) the platelets  get marginalised and trapped within the plaque .Hence in UA  thrombus is predominantly  white  . Often, a central platelet core  is  seen over which fibrin clot may also be  formed.

4.All available  thrombolytic agents act basically as a fibrinolytic agents,  and   so it finds   difficult to lyse the platelet rich clot.There is also a small risk of these agents lysing the fibrin cap and exposing underlying platelet  core and trigger a fresh thrombus.This has been documented in many trials( TIMI 3b to be specific) So if we thrombolyse in UA , there could be a risk of recurrent ACS episodes in the post thrombolytic phase.

5. UA is a semi emergency where  there is no race against time to salvage myocardium .Administering a  stroke prone thrombolytic agent tilts the risk benefit ratio against it.

6. Among UA, there is a significant group of secondary /perioperative UA   due to increased demand situations. Here there is absolutely no role for any thromolytic agents,  the  simple reason is , there is  no thrombus to get lysed. 

7.Many of the UA patient have multivessel CAD and might require surgical revascualarisation directly .

 

So fibrinolytic  agents are contraindicated in UA so what is the next step ?

The emergence of  intensive and aggressive platelet-lytic agents.

A combination of aspirin, clopidogrel, heparin, glycoprotien 2b 3a antagonist formed the major therapeutic protocol in these patients.Even though these are called antiplalet agents some of them  like 2b/3a antagonist eptifibatide, tirofiban, and many times even heparin has a potential to dissolve a thrombus. So technically one can call these agents  as thrombolytic agents.

What are the unresolved issues

                                       Even though clinical trials have convincingly shown thrombolytic agents  have no use in UA .There is a nagging belief  THAT  there could  be group of patients  with UA , still might benefit from thrombolysis as total occlusions have been documented  in some cases with UA.This is  especially true in peri-infarction unstable angina (Pre & post) as there is a fluctuation  between total and subtotal occlusions ) .But bed side recognition of this population is very difficult.

Many would consider this issue as redundant now,  since  most of  these patients  are taken up for emergency revascularisations

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts