A 58-year-old male is rolled into the critical care area of your ED with the complaint of crushing, midsternal chest pain that began one hour before presentation. The nurse tells you he has a history of hypertension and hyperlipidemia but is currently not on any medications. You look at the patient and he is clutching his chest, moaning in pain. He is drenched in sweat. His “airway, breathing, and circulation” are intact. You are immediately handed this ECG by your triage nurse:

STEMI

You correctly identify an anterior STEMI but then remember that your cath lab is closed, and you’ll have to transfer the patient out for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). You think it may take longer than 2 hours to get him to a catherization lab. You know you can give a fibrinolytic for STEMI, but it’s been a while since you gave it last. The clock is ticking as you think of your next move, and you recall a recent discussion on fibrinolytics for MI… 

How do they work?

There are two classes of fibrinolytics; fibrin specific and fibrin non-specific. As a fibrin specific medication, medications like tPA, reteplase, and tenecteplase bind to plasminogen. Plasminogen then gets broken down into plasmin. Plasmin is a proteolytic enzyme that works on breaking down the cross-links between fibrin molecules. Fibrin is a structural component of blood clots.(1)

Fibrinolysis

From CV Physiology (1)

 

What do the guidelines recommend?

At a non-PCI center, give fibrinolytics if there is a greater than 120-minute delay from first medical contact to PCI. (Class I)

If giving fibrinolytics, administer within the first 30 minutes. (Class I)

Administer fibrinolytics to patients who have had ischemic symptoms for less than 12 hours. (Class I)

Administer fibrinolytics to patients who have evidence of ongoing ischemia 12 to 24 hours after symptom onset or have a large area of the myocardium at risk or hemodynamic instability. (Class II)

Avoid giving fibrinolytics in patients with ST-depression (STD) alone, unless there is a suspected posterior MI or ST-elevation (STE) in aVR. (Class III) (2)

What are the contraindications?

The absolute contraindications of tPA are as follows: 

–Prior intracranial hemorrhage

–Known cerebral vascular lesion

–Known malignant intracranial neoplasm (primary or metastatic)

–Ischemic stroke (within 3 months)

–Suspected aortic dissection 

–Active bleeding or bleeding diathesis

–Significant closed head or facial trauma within 3 months

–Intracranial or intraspinal surgery within 2 months

–Severe uncontrolled hypertension (unresponsive to emergency therapy)

The relative contraindications are as follows: 

–Severe poorly controlled hypertension

–Significant hypertension on presentation >180/>110

–Prior ischemic stroke >3 months

–Dementia

–Known intracranial pathology (not covered in absolute contraindications)

–Traumatic or prolonged (>10 minutes) CPR

–Major surgery (<3 weeks)

–Recent (within 2-4 weeks) internal bleeding 

–Non-compressible vascular punctures

–Pregnancy 

–Active Peptic Ulcer 

–Oral Anticoagulant (2)

What are the risks?

In 1994, the Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialist (FTT) Group meta-analyzed nine RCTs (n=58,600) that studied multiple fibrinolytics and found that only 0.7% were harmed by a major bleeding event and 0.4% were harmed by a hemorrhagic stroke.(3) The GUSTO investigators found tenecteplase to be safer than tPA (higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke with tPA than with tenecteplase).(4)

What does the evidence show? What is this based on?

Timing:

The FTT Group Meta-Analysis examined various fibrinolytics and found that there was a significant reduction in 35-day mortality for giving fibrinolytics in ST-elevation/bundle branch block and <12 hours from onset of symptoms (fibrinolytic group: 9.6% vs control group: 11.5%).(5)

Age:

The FTT meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in mortality (favoring the fibrinolytic group) between patients over the age of 75 receiving fibrinolytics and those who did not get it.(5) 

Success Rate:

One Canadian prospective study by Bainey et al. showed that fibrinolytics within the first hour of symptoms successfully “aborted” MI in approximately 30% of STEMI patients. They reviewed serial ECGs of 2,235 patients with STE and elevated CKs over 5 years and found that for those reperfused within 12 hours:

16% of patients were considered to have an aborted MI

Up to 4 hours from symptoms onset, fibrinolytics were superior to PCI. 

An aborted MI was defined as a maximal increase of creatinine kinase <2 times the upper limit of normal with evolutionary ECG changes.(6)

Repercussions of delay:

Fibrinolytics, specifically, tPA, may be less effective the longer its administration is delayed.

Dosing of tPA

    • ≥ 67 kg: Infuse 15 mg IV over 1-2 min; then 50 mg over 30 min; then 35 mg over next 60 min (i.e. 100mg over 1.5hr)
    • < 67 kg: Infuse 15 mg IV over 1-2 min; then 0.75 mg/kg (max 50 mg) over 30 min; then 0.5 mg/kg over 60 min (max 35 mg)

Additional STEMI Management Tools

In addition to fibrinolytics, the American Heart Association STEMI guidelines recommend administering:

Aspirin 162 mg – 325 mg

Clopidogrel 300 mg (if over 75 years old: 75 mg)

Anticoagulation: Heparin gtt administered as 60 U/kg bolus then 12 U/kg gtt. It is possible to also use LMWH administered as 30 mg IV bolus plus 1mg/kg subcutaneous 15 minutes later for patients under 75 years old. If over 75 years old, give 0.75 mg/kg subcutaneous. Another option is fondaparinux administered as 2.5 mg. It is important to consider the creatinine clearance for the latter two options prior to administration.(2)

Reassessment after Fibrinolysis

Transfer Criteria

All patients given fibrinolytics should be transferred for PCI. If there is failed reperfusion, transfer urgently. If the patient has cardiogenic shock or acute severe heart failure, the patient should be transferred immediately for PCI. If there is successful reperfusion and the patient is stable, the patient should be transferred in 3-24 hours.(2)

Reperfusion Criteria

Upon reassessment at 60 to 90 minutes post-fibrinolytic, expect to see the resolution of STE, presence of a reperfusion arrhythmia, or improvement in chest pain. If there is >70% resolution of STE, successful reperfusion is considered to have occurred, and there is now a patent infarct artery. If there is < 50% STE resolution, assume failed fibrinolysis and urgently transfer for rescue PCI. (2) There is no evidence behind redosing fibrinolytics, and you may increase your patients risk of bleeding by doing so.(7)

Reperfusion Arrhythmias

Along with the resolution of STE, you may see the development of a reperfusion arrhythmia of which the most common is an accelerated idioventricular rhythm (below).(8) This rhythm is not sensitive or specific for reperfusion and does not require further treatment. You may see a combination of ventricular beats, fusion beats, and capture beats.

Reperfusion ECG

from Brown EM Blog (8)

How did our patient do?

Here is his repeat ECG:

Successful reperfusion (complete resolution of ST elevations) revealed a Wellen’s pattern (Biphasic T waves in V2-3) with TWI in I and aVL. Accordingly, he was found to have a mid-LAD lesion with 99% stenosis.

Final Thoughts

–Consider giving fibrinolytics for STEMIs within 30 minutes, especially if you anticipate a significant delay to PCI.

–The efficacy of fibrinolytics decreases as time from onset of symptoms lengthens. 

–Give fibrinolytics in conjunction with aspirin, clopidogrel, and heparin.

 

References:

1. Klaubunde R. CV Pharmacology | Thrombolytic (Fibrinolytic) Drugs [Internet]. Cvpharmacology.com. 2007 [cited 2020 Jun 6];Available from: https://www.cvpharmacology.com/thrombolytic/thrombolytic

2. O’Gara P, Kushner F, Ascheim D et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2013;61(4):e78-e140.

3. Quaas J. Thrombolytics Given for Major Heart Attack (STEMI) [Internet]. The NNT. 2019 [cited 2019 Sep 20];Available from: http://www.thennt.com/nnt/ thrombolytics-for-major-heart-attack/

4. An International Randomized Trial Comparing Four Thrombolytic Strategies for Acute Myocardial Infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 1993;329(10):673-682.

5. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists’ (FTT) Collaborative Group. Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. The Lancet 1994;343(8893):311-322.

6. Bainey K, Ferguson C, Ibrahim Q, Tyrrell B, Welsh R. Impact of Reperfusion Strategy on Aborted Myocardial Infarction: Insights From a Large Canadian ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Clinical Registry. Canadian Journal of Cardiology 2014;30(12):1570-1575.

7. Gershlick A, Stephens-Lloyd A, Hughes S et al. Rescue Angioplasty after Failed Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction. New England Journal of Medicine 2005;353(26):2758-2768.

8. Summerland C. Fibrinolytic Therapy for STEMI [Internet]. Brown EM Blog. 2019 [cited 2019 Sep 21];Available from: http://brownemblog.com/blog-1/2018/12/27/ fibrinolytic-therapy-for-stemi.

From the Archives:

The Non-Stroke TPA Debate: What else should we be giving TPA for?

edited by Robby Allen

The following two tabs change content below.

HopeT

Latest posts by HopeT (see all)


3 Comments

nicanthony · June 9, 2020 at 8:14 pm

“—Up to 4 hours from symptoms onset, fibrinolytics were superior to PCI. ”

Does that mean we are going to start moving away from PCI? And if fibrinolytics are given bc there is a delay to PCI, how soon is PCI recommended after fibrinolytic administration? Great post! Great refresher.

    HopeT · June 13, 2020 at 8:36 pm

    Thanks so much for reading and commenting!

    PCI is the gold standard; I don’t think we will move from that but the post was really to highlight all of the benefits of fibrinolytic administration when indicated and to empower us to use it more frequently.

    After giving fibrinolytics, the AHA 2013 guidelines recommend performing PCI within 3-24 hours in a stable/reperfused patient. There is an increased risk of bleeding with very early catheterization.

    Robby · June 18, 2020 at 5:35 pm

    To address your first question, “does that mean we are going to start moving away from PCI?” definitely cannot make that statement based off this observational study for the following reasons:
    1. Observational. Any observations from this data is at best, hypothesis generating only. Cannot make any definitive statements without performing RCT as wayyy too many confounding effects from this study.
    2. External validity: Performed in rural northern Canada, most patients presented to non-PCI center. (Thus, given current AHA guidelines, appropriate to give fibrinolytics if unable to receive PCI within 2 hours.) Furthermore while true “within 4 hours” higher rates of aborted MI (note: defined by CK not trop levels) with fibrinolytics, the majority of patients (median time >120min) did not receive pci within recommended time of <90 min door to balloon (as patients presented to non-pci center).
    3. Lack of data: research gurus will tell you table 1 is most important figure as will determine validity of paper. In this paper, table 1 compares patient characteristics of aborted MI vs STEMI (non-aborted). While we are not given the data, there is likely significant differences in characteristics between those who received fibrinolytics vs primary pci as not randomized (reperfusion strategy was determined by a physician who was involved in case).

    Conclusion from paper: definitely appropriate to give fibrinolytics if no contraindication, and no immediate access to PCI (whether that be Nothern Canada or Brooklyn), if so give early. Limited, but sufficient evidence may exist to propose randomized trial fibrinolytics vs PCI (unsure if such trial has been performed or is underway.)

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: