Pharmaco-invasive Strategy and Dosing of Tenecteplase in STEMI Patients 60 to <75 Years: An Inter-trial Comparison of the STREAM-1 and STREAM-2 Trials: Comparison of Patients 60 to <75 Years in STREAM-1 and -2.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS American heart journal Pub Date : 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ahj.2025.02.002
Kevin R Bainey, Robert C Welsh, Yinggan Zheng, Alexandra Arias-Mendoza, Arsen D Ristić, Oleg V Averkov, Yves Lambert, Tracy Temple, Eric Ly, Kris Bogaerts, Peter Sinnaeve, Cynthia M Westerhout, Frans Van de Werf, Paul W Armstrong
{"title":"Pharmaco-invasive Strategy and Dosing of Tenecteplase in STEMI Patients 60 to <75 Years: An Inter-trial Comparison of the STREAM-1 and STREAM-2 Trials: Comparison of Patients 60 to <75 Years in STREAM-1 and -2.","authors":"Kevin R Bainey, Robert C Welsh, Yinggan Zheng, Alexandra Arias-Mendoza, Arsen D Ristić, Oleg V Averkov, Yves Lambert, Tracy Temple, Eric Ly, Kris Bogaerts, Peter Sinnaeve, Cynthia M Westerhout, Frans Van de Werf, Paul W Armstrong","doi":"10.1016/j.ahj.2025.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Previous studies indicate a safety risk with full-dose TNK in elderly patients. In a study of patients ≥60 years STREAM-2 (STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial infarction-2), a pharmaco-invasive (PI) strategy with half-dose TNK was similar (in efficacy and safety) to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients presenting <3 hours. While no treatment difference ± 75 years was observed, the role of this half-dose PI strategy in patients <75 years is unknown. In this comparison of STEAM-1 and -2, we analyzed PI strategies with full-dose (STREAM-1) versus half-dose TNK (STREAM-2) to evaluate their relative efficacy and safety in this younger STEMI cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated patients 60 to <75 years from STREAM-1 and STREAM-2 receiving PI treatment versus PPCI for their resolution of ST-elevation after fibrinolysis and angiography, primary efficacy composite of 30-day all-cause death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and shock, and safety events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1103 patients, 327 received a full-dose PI strategy (STREAM-1), 289 a half-dose PI strategy (STREAM-2) and 487 PPCI (338 in STREAM-1; 149 in STREAM-2). Half- compared to full-dose TNK resulted in similar proportions of patients achieving ST resolution ≥50% (71.2% vs 68.7%, p=0.519): their ICH risks were 2.1% vs 1.5%, p=0.605 respectively). Following angiography, PI patients had nominally better ST resolution ≥50% compared to their PPCI counterpart (STREAM-1: 87.7% vs. 83.2%, p=0.120; STREAM-2: 88.2% vs. 81.0%, p=0.048) with similar primary composite outcome at 30 days (STREAM-1: 14.4% vs. 16.3%, 0.90 [0.62, 1.31]; STREAM-2: 9.0% vs 8.1%, 1.29 [0.64, 2.61]). Major (non-ICH) bleeding markedly declined in STREAM-2 compared to STREAM-1 in both treatment groups (STREAM-1: 7.1% vs. 6.0%; STREAM-2: 0.3% vs. 0.7%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In STEMI patients 60 to <75 years presenting within 3 hours of symptoms, half-dose PI treatment appears as efficacious as a full-dose PI strategy with a low systemic bleeding risk. Half-dose PI treatment deserves consideration when timely PPCI is not attainable in this important STEMI sub-group.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong></p><p><strong>Gov registration numbers: </strong>NCT00623623, NCT02777580.</p>","PeriodicalId":7868,"journal":{"name":"American heart journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American heart journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2025.02.002","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Previous studies indicate a safety risk with full-dose TNK in elderly patients. In a study of patients ≥60 years STREAM-2 (STrategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial infarction-2), a pharmaco-invasive (PI) strategy with half-dose TNK was similar (in efficacy and safety) to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients presenting <3 hours. While no treatment difference ± 75 years was observed, the role of this half-dose PI strategy in patients <75 years is unknown. In this comparison of STEAM-1 and -2, we analyzed PI strategies with full-dose (STREAM-1) versus half-dose TNK (STREAM-2) to evaluate their relative efficacy and safety in this younger STEMI cohort.

Methods: We evaluated patients 60 to <75 years from STREAM-1 and STREAM-2 receiving PI treatment versus PPCI for their resolution of ST-elevation after fibrinolysis and angiography, primary efficacy composite of 30-day all-cause death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and shock, and safety events.

Results: Among 1103 patients, 327 received a full-dose PI strategy (STREAM-1), 289 a half-dose PI strategy (STREAM-2) and 487 PPCI (338 in STREAM-1; 149 in STREAM-2). Half- compared to full-dose TNK resulted in similar proportions of patients achieving ST resolution ≥50% (71.2% vs 68.7%, p=0.519): their ICH risks were 2.1% vs 1.5%, p=0.605 respectively). Following angiography, PI patients had nominally better ST resolution ≥50% compared to their PPCI counterpart (STREAM-1: 87.7% vs. 83.2%, p=0.120; STREAM-2: 88.2% vs. 81.0%, p=0.048) with similar primary composite outcome at 30 days (STREAM-1: 14.4% vs. 16.3%, 0.90 [0.62, 1.31]; STREAM-2: 9.0% vs 8.1%, 1.29 [0.64, 2.61]). Major (non-ICH) bleeding markedly declined in STREAM-2 compared to STREAM-1 in both treatment groups (STREAM-1: 7.1% vs. 6.0%; STREAM-2: 0.3% vs. 0.7%).

Conclusion: In STEMI patients 60 to <75 years presenting within 3 hours of symptoms, half-dose PI treatment appears as efficacious as a full-dose PI strategy with a low systemic bleeding risk. Half-dose PI treatment deserves consideration when timely PPCI is not attainable in this important STEMI sub-group.

Clinicaltrials:

Gov registration numbers: NCT00623623, NCT02777580.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American heart journal
American heart journal 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
2.10%
发文量
214
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The American Heart Journal will consider for publication suitable articles on topics pertaining to the broad discipline of cardiovascular disease. Our goal is to provide the reader primary investigation, scholarly review, and opinion concerning the practice of cardiovascular medicine. We especially encourage submission of 3 types of reports that are not frequently seen in cardiovascular journals: negative clinical studies, reports on study designs, and studies involving the organization of medical care. The Journal does not accept individual case reports or original articles involving bench laboratory or animal research.
期刊最新文献
Design, rationale, and characterization of the Mobile health based OccuPational cardiovascular risk intErventioN study (mHealth-OPEN Study). Patient characteristics, presentation, causal microorganisms, and overall mortality in the NatIonal Danish endocarditis stUdieS (NIDUS) registry. Pharmaco-invasive Strategy and Dosing of Tenecteplase in STEMI Patients 60 to <75 Years: An Inter-trial Comparison of the STREAM-1 and STREAM-2 Trials: Comparison of Patients 60 to <75 Years in STREAM-1 and -2. Prospective randomized single-blind multicenter study to assess the safety and effectiveness of the SELUTION SLR 014 drug eluting balloon in the treatment of subjects with in-stent restenosis: rationale and design. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis Aged 70 Years or Younger - a NOTION-2 sub-study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1