Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Direct coronary intervention for ST-elevation MI
Eric J Topol MDProvost and Chief Academic OfficerChairman, Department of Cardiovascular MedicineThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationCleveland, Ohio
Robert M Califf MDProfessor of MedicineAssociate Vice Chancellor for Clinical ResearchDirector, Duke Clinical Research InstituteDuke University Medical CenterDurham, North Carolina
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
DANAMI-2 and C-PORT
DANAMI-2
•DANish Multicenter Trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction 2
C-PORT•Atlantic Cardiovascular Patient
Outcomes Research Team
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
DANAMI-2: Setup
1572 patients randomized to fibrinolysis (100 mg front loaded tPA) or PCI + stent
Primary endpoint: Death, reinfarction, or disabling stroke in 30 days
5 PCI centers and 24 referral hospitals which served 62% of Danish population
Patients arriving at a referral center who were randomized to PCI were transferred to the nearest PCI center
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
DANAMI-2: Stratification
Patients arriving at referral hospitals:
• 1100 planned/1129 enrolled
• Received either tPA or ambulance transfer to PCI center for PCI
Patients arriving at PCI centers:
• 800 planned/443 enrolled
• Received either tPA or PCI
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
DANAMI-2: Pre-treatment
Inclusion criteria:
• ST-elevation 4 mm
• Symptoms 12 hrs at randomization
• Transfer time of 3 hrs
Few complications in transport
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
DANAMI-2: Time to treatmentTime to hospital:
• < 1-hr transport by ambulance from referral center to PCI center
• 120 minutes from onset of symptoms to hospital
• Door-to-needle time < 1 hr
• Door-to-balloon time did not differ much between patients arriving at referral hospitals or PCI centers
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
ACC 2002
DANAMI-2: Events by hospital type
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Combined Referral hospital PCI center
PCI Fibrinolysis
p=0.0003 p=0.002
p=0.048
8.0
13.7
8.5
14.2
6.7
12.3
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
ACC 2002
DANAMI-2: Event rate
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Combined Reinfarction Stroke Death
PCI Fibrinolysis
p=0.0003
p<0.0001
p=0.15
p=0.358.0
13.7
1.6
6.3
1.12.0
6.67.6
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
C-PORT: Setup
451 AMI patients randomized to tPA (n=226) or primary PCI (n=225)
Primary endpoint: Death, reinfarction, and stroke in 6 months; median hospital length of stay
11 community hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery were turned into PCI centers
Door-to-balloon time: 101 minutes
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
C-PORT: Original plan
Trial was planned with 2550 patients but was stopped in June 1999 due to poor funding
"So it's almost 3 years before the trial findings are seeing the
light of day."
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Aversano T et al. JAMA 2002;287:1943-51
C-PORT: Combined endpoint
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%
6 weeks 6 months
PCI Fibrinolysis
p=0.03 p=0.03
10.7
17.7
12.4
19.9
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
C-PORT: Interpretation
The trial data get more weight when put in context with DANAMI-2
"The big problem of course is how do you interpret this in terms of 'are there new recommendations for practice'?"
I don't know if C-PORT and DANAMI-2 justify making lytic therapy an obsolete strategy
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Effects on mortality
"In fact there's never been, and there still is not, one single trial that shows survival improvement. And that's been our standard in acute MI."
Topol
Some of the 21 studies Cannon cites did not show superiority, somewhere along the way he's not counting right
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Issues with the PCI trials
There are problems with the PCI trials •Lytic trials of over 200 000 patients•These PCI trials are open trials, not
blinded•There are less than 10 000 patients in
these randomized PCI trials•DANAMI-2 had only 2.5% rate of rescue
PCI and a high ST-segment elevation entry criteria
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Counterarguments
"Let me respond to the whole barrage of fibrinolytic propaganda."
•There is a trend in most of these trials
•We can't blind PCI (How to do device trials in acute MI is a general issue that needs to be discussed)
Califf
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Small inferior MI
"Would I rather expose that person to a cardiac cath (which they are probably are going to need anyway) or to a 1-2% risk of intracranial hemorrhage?"
Califf
"I don't know it gets up that high unless you're talking about greater than age 75."
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Refuting PCI for everyone"I want to cut through the
hyperbole about PCI for everyone and every hospital now should be made into a PCI center. I don't think that the data necessarily support that."
"I think PCI is superior to lytics -- in the right place at the right time."
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Refuting PCI for everyone"I'm just trying to fast-forward to
St Elsewhere hospital with an operator that's never done a PCI who takes these trials and says, 'You know what? I'm going to start doing angioplasty in acute MI because these trials support that.' "
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Ideals and reality"I think you would agree with me that the ideal now would be if you could organize hospitals into MI centers and have an efficient, effective transportation system where patients could get to the right place at the right time."
Califf
"Well that sounds really good, but you know what? In reality it's not going to work so easily."
Califf
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
A force fit
"I would like to know that it works; that you can really do streamlined transfer of patients, that you can really get operator proficiency before we adapt cities around our country into a forced fit."
Topol
Cannot throw out the current therapy on just these trials, it is premature
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
"I'd hate to see these two trials reshape public health policy on acute MI."
Topol
These trials are best-case scenarios: not enough rescue angioplasty was done in DANAMI-2 and C-PORT is an aborted trial
Reshaping policy
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
DANAMI-2 site
DANAMI-2: 12-hour window
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%
Pri
mary
end p
oin
t
0-1.5 >1.5-2.5 >2.5-4 >4-12
Time to randomization (hours)
PCI Fibrinolysis
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Door-to-balloon time
Intuitively, the shorter the door-to-balloon time, the better
• Ideally, I would want it between 60-90 minutes.
•Even 2 hours is too long
• I would take lytics within 45 minutes of hitting the ER over direct PCI in 2 hours without question
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
One size does not fit all
You can't make blanket statements about what to do in all MIs •A patient with anterior MI aged <75,
little risk of ICH – I would be comfortable using a GUSTO V-type regimen
• In a patient with a high risk for ICH it would make sense to accept a longer transport time to get direct PCI
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Hub-and-spoke model
All evidence points to an advantage in creating MI centers with experienced personnel
Califf
But the delays in transfer are so long that you cannot abandon lytics
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Time to PCI
The door-to-balloon time should be as short as possible
•DANAMI doesn't have enough data to support 3 hours as acceptable
•That transfer time was used to prepare the cath-team in the PCI center to receive the patient
"I don't know that our system, in most places, is so well conditioned like that."
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Unskilled practitioners
"This whole idea […] that coronary intervention is so safe now with stents, IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and other adjunctive therapy that we don't need bypass surgery backup? I think this is overstepping the data we have available today?"
Topol
Many cardiologists in the US don't haveadequate volume in elective PCI, let alone AMI
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Adequate proficiency in PCI
Must exceed the AHA/ACC minimums
•>100 interventions per year
•> 25 acute interventions per year
"Those are so remarkably low threshold to me for this sort of decision."
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Community MI centers
A community would be well-served to centralize its MI care if it could assure efficient transfer from outlying hospitals
•Califf: Up to 3 hrs would be acceptable
•Topol: 1.5-hour limit to mechanical reperfusion – 3 hrs only if you also give lytics during the wait
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Next trials
The next set of trials that should be done is to randomize patients who will be transported to either get chemical reperfusion en route or not
Califf
Is the difference between the "bland" infarct from coronary intervention vs the hemorrhagic infarct from the drugs important in the end result?
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Pitfalls
"There's some real pitfalls of these two trials. That unless you tune into the details you might just dismiss lytics which have, I would say, an exceptional track record of having gone through rigorous trials and large numbers of patients."
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
When to move on
"I'm a big fan of lytics as you know, and both of us have spent a good part of our careers developing them, but I would also say at some point if something better comes along you've gotta give it up."
Califf
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Mandated health strategy
"When you roll out a strategy all across the country and you start to make that a mandate and its really a contrived sort of thing without the data to back it up […] I think there's a lot of uncertainties here."
Topol
We must beware of overextrapolation from the results
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Establishing standards
Communities who do want to implement this direct-PCI strategy
•Should have good records of actual transport times
•The outside limit of time delay is still unclear and needs to be determined
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
Death inDANAMI-2
Mortality benefit
Is this 1% absolute benefit in PCI not about salvage? Is it just patency that's important?
Topol
After 3 hours after symptoms, the wavefront may well be done. So beyond 3 hours it may be just a question of the open artery
Califf
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Device approval
What should the criteria be for approving a device for AMI?
The FDA and device community have rejected a randomized mortality trial as being unfeasible
Califf
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
"The only problem they had is they were too good, it may not be generalizable to most countries and communities."
Califf
Califf: 2 thumbs up for DANAMI-2
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Califf: 1 up/1 down for C-PORT
"It was an innovative study but it obviously didn't achieve its objective in terms of enrollment and left a lot of questions unanswered."
Califf
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Topol: 1 up/1 down for C-PORT
"By not having done the experiment as planned it suffers from some concerns about the conclusions."
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Topol: 2 thumbs up for DANAMI-2
"I wish they had been more permissive with rescue intervention […] But to do that in only 2.5% of patients seemed like it loaded the deck unnecessarily for the mechanical strategy."
Topol
Thumbs up/Thumbs down – May 2002
Direct coronary intervention for MI
Califf: Final thoughts
"It's a topic we shouldn't get complacent about. It's still the leading cause of death in the developed world and something that every percent reduction in mortality is very important."
Califf