Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘tpa’

  • Diabetes mellitus is a pro-coagulant state,especially so in severe uncontrolled states.(1)
  • This is mediated by increased  levels of   plasminogen  activator Inhibitor.(PAI 1 and 2
  • This tilts  anti-fibrinolytic  forces towards thrombosis.
  • High PAI-1 is an Independent risk factor for MI in young individuals (3)
  • During STEMI the success rate of  fibrinolysis is significantly lower in diabetic population because high levels of PAI 1 .
  • The triad of DM,Obesity, Insulin resistance is a powerful predictor of  poor  response to thrombolysis.

 

Read Full Post »

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 »

Thrombus formation  and subsequent lysis  either spontaneous or pharmacological is the key events in acute vascular emergencies .We know both STEMI and acute strokes can get aborted  naturally.

The thrombus which initially forms , triggers a natural lytic mechanism and this fights vigorously against the clotting process , and tries to get rid  of the intravascular clot.

The early  minutes are vital. (Like the T 20 cricket )  the win or loss is decided in the first few overs . The mantra is unrelented attack of the ball . . .ie thrombus !  In some patients  the clot  can never grow big to fill the lumen.These are lucky few .The mechanisms are common in both cerebral and coronary circulation. Here is were comes the role of antiplatelet agesnt .An aspirin or clopidogrel administered within minutes can prevent the genesis of  central core of the thrombus .(This is the  secret of aspirin scoring over stretokinase in STEMI in ISIS2 study done three deaceds ago !)

It should be realised,  our understanding about spontaneous lysis is very little considering explosive growth of other aspects of cardiology. It is mediated by circulating  TPA and antithrombin 3  .  Remember  every humans have it in their  blood .But how much ? How to augment it ‘s power at times of thrombotic crises ?

What could be the clinical correlates of spontaneous thrombolysis ?

  1. In brain classically it is TIA .
  2. In heart do we have TIA equivalents ?  .Yes it transient rest angina

Link to video on TIA of the heart

Read this article to get a glimpse of  natural cerebral thrombolysis  and shall we   extrapolate it to coronary spontaneous thrombolysis  .Why not ?

Arch Neurol — Nonocclusion and Spontaneous Recanalization Rates in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Review of Cerebral Angiography Studies, December 2002, Kassem-Moussa and Graffagnino 59 (12): 1870

Read Full Post »

Thrombolytic therapy ,  has been  the specific treatment  for STEMI for  many decades. Primary PCI*  is  shown to be  superior  than  thrombolysis  if   performed   early  by an experienced  team in a dedicated facility. (*Conditions apply). It is estimated ,   currently only a  a fraction  STEMI  population get primary PCI (<5%) in ideal conditions . Another fraction , get  primary PCI by inexperienced cardiologists  in low volume centres.

So , thrombolysis   remains, and  would continue to remain ,   the    primary  mode of therapy for STEMI  in the  present and near  future !

How do you assess the successful  thrombolysis ?

It should be recognised ,  there is a fundametal flaw in this  question !

The aim of thrombolytic therapy is  not  to   lyse  the thrombus  , but also  to restore the coronary blood flow to the  myocardium – also called reperfusion . One may wonder , why the term ,  thrombolysis  should ‘t be  used interchangeably with reperfusion. 

A successful thrombolysis  never guarantees  a good reperfusion , for the simple reason ,  distal blood flow in an  obstructed coronary artery  is dependent on ,  many factors  other than relief of obstruction.

Apart from the potency of drug,     other   important factors  that determine  successful  lysis &  reperfusion are  . . .

  • Timing of opening of artery , if the thrombolysis is delayed  ,  the distal myocardium is dead , and   it won’t allow blood flow to enter the mycardium.
  • Microvascular integrity is as vital as epicardial vessels.
  • Distal microvascualture  plugging by the thrombotic debri . This is called”no reflow “

So , we should  primarily assess myocardial reperfusion rather than epicardial thrombolyis ! following thrombolysis .

What are the parameters available to assess successful reperfusion /thrombolyis?

  1. Clinical : Relief from chest  pain. Angina relief  , though subjective is an indication for adequate reperfusion of ischemic myocardium.
  2. ECG-ST segment regression > 50%
  3. Cardiac enzymes: Early flushing of  intra myocytic CPK into systemic circulation and hence early peaking of CPK MB (<1ohours instead of 24h)
  4. Reperfusion arrhythmias(AIVR-Less specific) .Primary VF is now thought to be reperfusion related.
  5. Infract related artery(IRA) patency by coronary angiogram
  6. Distal TIMI flow/ myocardial blush score/ TIMI frame count

ECG ST regression ,  is a direct indicator  myocardial reperfusion   as the ST segment shifts  towards baseline ,  implies  of infarct current of injury . ST regression almost always correlate with good  recovery of LV function  in STEMI .

IRA patency , is an epicardial index , it  does not give information about myocardial blood flow . But ,  a good  distal TIMI flow generally indicates good reperfusion.This  again ,  is  not a fool proof  index,  as even many of the TIMI 3 flow patients  have severely damaged myocardium by echocardiography .

Final message

For the above reasons, one should always  make a distinction between successful lysis and successful reperfusion . Surprisingly ,  ECG  is  the gold standard for assessing successful reperfusion of myocardium ,  while CAG tell us  about epicardial patency and possibly reperfusion also.

Read Full Post »

Failed thrombolysis is an important clinical  issue  in STEMI   as  successful thrombolysis  occurs  only in  about 50-60%  of pateints . The typical criteria to define failed thrombolysis is  the  regression  of less than 50% of sum total( or maximum)  ST elevation in infarct leads.

So what do you do for these patients with failed thrombolysis ?

It depends upon the patient’s symptom, hemodynamic stability, LV dysfunction .

They  should  get one of the following .

  1. Conservative medical management  with /without CAG
  2. Repeat thrombolysis
  3. Rescue PCI
  4. CABG

Medical management is  thought to be  too inferior a  management,  many of the interventional cardiologists  do  not want to talk about . But  , there is  an important  group of patients (Not often addressed in cardiology literature)  who  technically fulfill the criteria  of failed thrombolysis  , but   still  very  comfortable , asymtomatic  and in  class 1. These patients ,  have  a strong option for continuing the conservative management .

Repeat thrombolysis does not have a consistent effect but can  be  tried in some  stable patients. CABG  can be a genuine option in few

Rescue PCI

This terminology  has become  the  glamorous one since the  catchy word  rescue is tagged in the title  itself. For most of the cardiac physicians ,  this has become the default treatment modality.This is an unfortunate perception . What  one should realise   here is  , we are  tying to rescue  the myocardium and  the patient ,   not the patient’s coronary artery !

Opening up a coronary obstruction is not synonymous with rescue .

For rescue PCI ,  to be effective it should be done within the same time window as that for thrombolysis (ie within 6 or at the most  12 hours) .This timing  is  of vital importance  for the simple reason , there will be nothing to rescue after 12 hours as most of the muscle  would be  dead. Reperfusing a dead myocardium has been shown to be hazardous in some ,  as it converts a simple  infarct into a hemorrhagic  infarct.This softens the core of the infarct and  carry a risk of rupture. Further,   doing a complex emergency  PCI  ,  in  a thrombotic milieu with   presumed  long term  benefit ,  is  a  perfect recipe for a potential  disaster.

While the above statement may be seen as pessimistic view , the optimistic cardiologist would vouch for the“Curious  open artery hypothesis” .This theory simply states , whatever be the status  of the distal myocardium ( dead or alive !)   opening an obstruction in the concerened coronary artery  will benefit the patient !

It is  huge surprise , this concept   continues to  be alive even after  repeatedly shot dead by number of very good clinical trials (TOAT, CTO limb of COURAGE etc ).

The REACT study (2004) concluded undisputed benefit of rescue PCI for failed thrombolysis  , only if the rescue was done  within  5-10 hours after the onset of symptoms.The mean time for  pain-to-rescue PCI was 414 minutes (6.5hours)

Final  message

It is fashionable to talk about time window for thrombolyis but not for PCI  .The time window for rescue PCI is an redundant issue  for many  cardiologists ! . But ,  the fact of the matter is ,  it is not . . .

The concept of time window in rescue PCI  , is as important as ,   that of  thrombolysis. Please , think twice or thrice !  if some body suggest you to do a rescue PCI in a stable patient  ,  12hours after the index event .

Important note : This rule   does not (  or need  not  ) apply for patients in cardiogenic shock  or patient ‘s with ongoing iscemia and angina.

Read Full Post »

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 »

 

 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 »

Older Posts »