Skip Navigation


QJM Advance Access originally published online on April 8, 2009
QJM 2009 102(6):401-406; doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcp037
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
102/6/401    most recent
hcp037v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Halkin, A.
Right arrow Articles by Behar, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Halkin, A.
Right arrow Articles by Behar, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Incidence and prognosis of non-Q-wave vs. Q-wave myocardial infarction following catheter-based reperfusion therapy

A. Halkin1, D. Fourey1, A. Roth1, V. Boyko2 and S. Behar2

From the 1Department of Cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv and 2Neufeld Cardiac Research Institute, Tel Hashomer, Israel

Address correspondence to A. Halkin, Department of Cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center, 6 Weizmann Street, Tel Aviv, Israel. email: ahalkin{at}netvision.net.il

Received 2 November 2008 and in revised form 12 March 2009


   Abstract

Background: The clinical importance of classifying myocardial infarction (MI) into non-Q-wave (NQWMI) vs. Q-wave (QWMI) subsets is controversial and might depend on the therapeutic reperfusion strategy employed. The prognostic implications of NQWMI development following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been reported.

Aim: To examine the incidence, determinants and prognostic implications of NQWMI vs. QWMI development following primary PCI.

Design: The ACSIS Registry, a 2-month nationwide survey conducted biennially, prospectively collects data from all MI admissions in Israel.

Methods: Outcomes were compared among patients managed by primary PCI who subsequently developed NQWMI vs. QWMI. Independent predictors of Q-wave development and 1-year mortality were determined by multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazard model, respectively.

Results: Of 4537 MI patients with ST-segment elevation on admission, 1230 (27%) were treated with primary PCI. A discharge diagnosis of NQWMI was made in 259 (21.1%) patients. The baseline features and PCI strategies employed were similar among NQWMI vs. QWMI patients, though peak creatine kinase levels were higher (median 795 U/l vs. 1681 U/l, P = 0.0001) and severe left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) impairment (<40%) more frequent (22.6% vs. 43.9%, P < 0.0001), in the latter group. Mortality at 1-year was significantly lower in NQWMI vs. QWMI patients (3.9% vs. 10.8%, P log-rank = 0.001). By Cox proportional hazard analysis, NQWMI vs. QWMI was an independent predictor of freedom from 1-year mortality [HR = 0.34 (95% CI: 0.15–0.79), P = 0.01].

Discussion: The diagnosis of NQWMI after primary PCI is associated with an excellent prognosis independent of established prognosticators, including LVEF.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.