Search

Clinical guidelines for the treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) recommend an invasive strategy with cardiac catheterization, revascularization when clinically appropriate, and initiation of dual antiplatelet therapy regardless of whether the patient receives revascularization. However, although patients with NSTEMI have a higher long-term mortality risk than patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), they are often treated less aggressively; with those who have the highest ischemic risk often receiving the least aggressive treatment (the "treatment-risk paradox"). Here, using evidence gathered from across the world, we examine some reasons behind the suboptimal treatment of patients with NSTEMI, and recommend approaches to address this issue in order to improve the standard of healthcare for this group of patients. The challenges for the treatment of patients with NSTEMI can be categorized into four "P" factors that contribute to poor clinical outcomes: patient characteristics being heterogeneous; physicians underestimating the high ischemic risk compared with bleeding risk; procedure availability; and policy within the healthcare system. To address these challenges, potential approaches include: developing guidelines and protocols that incorporate rigorous definitions of NSTEMI; risk assessment and integrated quality assessment measures; providing education to physicians on the management of long-term cardiovascular risk in patients with NSTEMI; and making stents and antiplatelet therapies more accessible to patients., (© 2019 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion method in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In patients with STEMI who cannot undergo timely primary PCI, pharmacoinvasive treatment is recommended, comprising immediate fibrinolytic therapy with subsequent coronary angiography and rescue PCI if needed. Improving clinical outcomes following fibrinolysis remains of great importance for the many patients globally for whom rapid treatment with primary PCI is not possible. For patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent primary PCI, the PLATO trial demonstrated superior efficacy of ticagrelor relative to clopidogrel. Results in the predefined subgroup of patients with STEMI were consistent with the overall PLATO trial. Patients who received fibrinolytic therapy in the 24 hours before randomization were excluded from PLATO, and there is thus a lack of data on the safety of using ticagrelor in conjunction with fibrinolytic therapy in the first 24 hours after STEMI. The TREAT study addresses this knowledge gap; patients with STEMI who had symptom onset within the previous 24 hours and had received fibrinolytic therapy (of whom 89.4% had also received clopidogrel) were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor or clopidogrel (median time between fibrinolysis and randomization: 11.5 hours). At 30 days, ticagrelor was found to be non-inferior to clopidogrel for the primary safety outcome of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI)-defined first major bleeding. Considering together the results of the PLATO and TREAT studies, initiating or switching to treatment with ticagrelor within the first 24 hours after STEMI in patients receiving fibrinolysis is reasonable., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)