Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘tenektepalce vs streptokinase’

Thrombolytic therapy was a  mini revolution  when it was introduced two decades ago .It has since evolved  , not only in the  molecular structure  but also in it’s usage pattern.

The first generation streptokinase is continued to be used even today  . While the latest generation thrombolytic agent TNKTPA(Tenekteplase) is threatening  to push the  old warrior out of  CCU.

(Of course the  American Physician & Pharma  community  never  gave the due respect to  streptokinase  !)

The two common indications  for thrombolytic therapy  are

  • STEMI
  • Acute pulmonary embolism

Uncommon indications

  • Stroke( Can be common in few institutions)
  • Prosthetic valve thrombosis
  • Rarely DVT

From the beginning , there has been a controversy  about the thrombolytic  dosage and  the speed with which it is to be administered .Let us recall , streptokinase was initially  used  in  various regimes ( 5-30lakh units between a 10 -3hr infusion )  Later ,we arrived at a consensus at  15L units  in 1 hr infusion . TPA also experienced the same . Which  settled  for front loaded regimen(35 + 65mg)  . The confusion reappeared when we developed bolus thrombolytic agents( TNKTPA) .

In STEMI thrombus formation  is  often a one time process  while thrombolysis is a continuous process. In pulmonary embolism both  thrombus formation  and lysis  is often continuous process  .

The success of thrombolysis depends on the sustained  drug concentration ,  the pressure at which the drug interacts  the thrombus.

Many times it is prudent to administer  intensive heparin after thrombolysis  to prevent recurrent thrombosis. Further ,  most of the pulmonary embolisms  will require long term anticoagulants.

How to maximize the success of thrombolytic agents ?

  • Local catheter based thrombolysis can be tried  within the coronary ostium (Largely unpopular)
  • Within the pulmonary artery for pulmonary embolism (Still considered an useful option )

It  makes sense , to administer these thrombolytic agents over a prolonged period of time so that the lytic process gets wider recruitment of the natural lytic mechanisms.

When a drug is infused continuously , the drug  reach the thrombus in  a pulsatile manner , which facilitates thrombus dessication  (Like drip irrigation ) . A long acting drug even with a high concentration may not be  very effective , since  the  drug is required to produce a mechanical effect  here . (Unlike say a long acting antibiotics !)

TPA in Pulmonary embolism

The inadequacies  of  2 hour infusion of TPA is  glaring in acute pulmonary embolism .We believe   a 48-72 hour streptokinase infusion   has a definte edge   over a short and brief TPA infusion.

Issues need answer

It is yet , not understood why we can’ t infuse TPA as  a   long term infusion like streptokinase .

Advantage  of bolus TNK TPA  in  pre-hospital phase of STEMI

The argument in favor of bolus dose  thrombolytic agent  is  the ease of administration .

The other the major advantage claimed  is ,  a 10 second  TNK TPA   in STEMI  can  substantially  reduce the time window   and facilitate  early completion of thrombolysis .

Counter point

But , the  later concept is hard to prove  . . .

In fact , there  are  no controlled studies  available for assessing the   efficacy of TNK-TPA   vs  Streptokinase   with reference to various time windows. We presume so many things. An  incomplete   early thrombolysis  may not be better than a  more  successful  but  slightly delayed TIMI3 flow .

As scientists,  when  we try  to answer these  question we  ask for data .  Are we getting it any way ?  Are the existing data reflect  fact ?     We  wonder,  will we may never get   an  hourly  angiographic  data base  about the IRA  patency  in  TPA bolus  vs streptokinase infusion .

It is most unfortunate,   with  many of the critical questions   still to be answered ,  the cardiology community believes ,  they  have  reached the  summit  of  knowledge  about thrombolytic therapy . Current perception is , the research on  existing  thrombolytic drugs  is  deemed to have been complete .

In this hyped  era of interventional coronary  care  ,   it is a remote possibility   to have any  further comparative studies on thrombolytic agents .

The greatest threat faced by  us  today  is the destiny  of  modern medicine is   often  decided in  few corporate board rooms  and   hence   research questions  rarely  emanate from bed side !

In this scenario, where we are not likely to generate   genuine  clinical  data ,  the only way to move   forward is   to go  by  our experience – ” Genuine  experience to be precise . . .”

Final message

Ease of administration should never be the criteria in choosing a thrombolytic agent . It   can severely    compromise the quality of thrombolysis  ! especially in pulmonary embolism and to a certain extent in STEMI.  Success   rarely  comes  with ease  . . .

Many believe , the choice  between  streptokinase   & TPA    goes much beyond it’s academic reasons.  TNK TPA (Tenektepalse) has come in a big way to replace streptokinase  even   in developing countries.  Ofcourse it is backed by a huge study  ! (ASSENT) .

The cost effectiveness and worthiness  of TPA over streptokinase  was  never proved comprehensively.

Note of caution :

The observation made above is   based on personal  opinion  in  about   20 patients  . Readers are  argued to do their own  analysis on this issue and come to a conclusion .

Read Full Post »