+ All Categories
Home > Documents > 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in...

1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in...

Date post: 12-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: jason-strickland
View: 213 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
99
1 Acute STEMI: current approach
Transcript
Page 1: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

1

Acute STEMI: current approach

Page 2: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

2

Page 3: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

3

Page 4: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

4

Page 5: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

5

Page 6: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

6

Page 7: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

7

NSTEACS vs. STEACS

• Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 %• Autolysis• Recurrent ischemia/MI• No time dependent muscle lose• Grayish-white (platelet-rich) vs. reddish

(fibrin- rich)• No role of fibrinolysis in STEACS (TIMI IIIB:

↑MI,↑trend of bleeding)

Page 8: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

8

Page 9: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

9

Page 10: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

10

ED Evaluation of ED Evaluation of Patients With STEMIPatients With STEMI

Aortic dissection

Pulmonary embolus

Perforating ulcer

Tension pneumothorax

Boerhaave syndrome

(esophageal rupture with

mediastinitis)

Differential Diagnosis of STEMI: Life-Threatening

Page 11: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

11

Page 12: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

12

“ACS in the year 2011”

Page 13: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

13

Page 14: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

14

Page 15: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

15

Page 16: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

16

Page 17: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

17

Management of STEMI

Page 18: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

18

Page 19: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

19

Page 20: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

20

Page 21: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

21

Page 22: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

22

Page 23: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

23

Page 24: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

24

Page 25: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

25

Page 26: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

26

Page 27: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

27

Page 28: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

28

Page 29: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

29

Page 30: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

30

“Thrombolytic Therapy ”

Page 31: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

31

FibrinolysisFibrinolysis

In the absence of contraindications, fibrinolytic therapy should be administered to STEMI patients with symptom onset within the prior 12 hours.

In the absence of contraindications, fibrinolytic therapy should be administered to STEMI patients with symptom onset within the prior 12 hours and new or presumably new left bundle branch block (LBBB).

III IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIII

III IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIII

Page 32: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

32

Page 33: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

33

Page 34: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

34

Page 35: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

35

Page 36: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

36

“Antiplatelets”

Page 37: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

37

Page 38: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

38

AspirinAspirinIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIII

Aspirin should be chewed by patients who have

not taken aspirin before presentation with STEMI.

The initial dose should be 162 mg (Level of

Evidence: A) to 325 mg (Level of Evidence: C)

Although some trials have used enteric-coated aspirin for initial dosing, more rapid buccal absorption occurs with non–enteric-coated formulations.

III IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIII

Page 39: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

39

Page 40: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

40

Page 41: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

41

Page 42: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

42

Page 43: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

43

Page 44: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

44

Death/non-fatal MI at day 30 for the major subgroups

All interaction testsp = NS

p < 0.0001

0.5 1 2Enoxaparin better UFH better

Sex MaleFemale

Age (years) < 75 75

Infarct location AnteriorOther

Diabetes No diabetesDiabetes

Prior MI No prior MIPrior MI

Fibrinolytic StreptokinaseFibrin specific

Time-to-treatment < Median Median

OVERALL N = 20,479

Reduction in risk (%)1816

206

1123

1721

1720

1318

2312

17

Adapted with permission from Antman EM, et al. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1477-88.NS = not significant.

Page 45: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

45

Cumulative incidence of individual elements of the primary endpoints, death (left) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (right), in patients randomized to the enoxaparin vs. the

unfractionated heparin strategy.

Morrow D A et al. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2097-2102

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2010. For permissions please email: [email protected]

Page 46: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

46

Relative hazard rates and absolute event rates for the primary endpoint at 1 year in various subgroups.

Morrow D A et al. Eur Heart J 2010;31:2097-2102

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2010. For permissions please email: [email protected]

Page 47: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

47

Page 48: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

48

Page 49: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

49

Page 50: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

50

Page 51: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

51

Page 52: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

52

Page 53: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

53

Patients with ongoing ischemic discomfort should receive sublingual NTG (0.4 mg) every 5 minutes for a total of 3 doses, after which an assessment should be made about the need for intravenous NTG.

Intravenous NTG is indicated for relief of ongoing

ischemic discomfort that responds to nitrate therapy,

control of hypertension, or management of pulmonary

congestion.

NitroglycerinNitroglycerin

III IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIII

III IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIII

Page 54: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

54

Nitrates should not be administered to patients with:

Nitrates should not be administered to patients who have received a phosphodiesterase inhibitor for erectile dysfunction within the last 24 hours (48 hours for tadalafil).

• systolic pressure < 90 mm Hg or ≥ to 30 mm Hg below baseline

• severe bradycardia (< 50 bpm)• tachycardia (> 100 bpm) or• suspected RV infarction.

NitroglycerinNitroglycerin

III IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIII

III IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIII IIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIIIIIaIIaIIa IIbIIbIIb IIIIIIIII

Page 55: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

55

Page 56: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

56

 Practical demonstration of the ST segment resolution score (STR) in a patient treated by fibrinolysis for an acute anterior myocardial infarction.

Eeckhout E Heart 2007;93:632-638

©2007 by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Cardiovascular Society

Page 57: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

57

Page 58: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

58Copyright ©2007 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Restrictions may apply.

Wijeysundera, H. C. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:422-430

Efficacy End Points for Repeat Fibrinolytic Therapy Versus Conservative Therapy

Page 59: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

59Copyright ©2007 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Restrictions may apply.

Wijeysundera, H. C. et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:422-430

Safety End Points for Repeat Fibrinolytic Therapy Versus Conservative Therapy

Page 60: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

60

Page 61: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

61

Page 62: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

62

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS)

• Unstable angina (UA)• Non-ST-elevation myocardial infraction

(NSTEMI)

Page 63: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

63

Page 64: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

64

Page 65: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

65

Page 66: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

66

Page 67: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

67

Page 68: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

68

Page 69: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

69

Page 70: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

70

Page 71: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

71

Page 72: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

72

Page 73: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

73

Page 74: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

74

Page 75: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

75

Page 76: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

76

Page 77: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

77

Page 78: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

78

Page 79: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

79

Page 80: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

80

Page 81: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

81

Page 82: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

82

Page 83: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

83

Page 84: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

84

Page 85: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

85

Page 86: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

86

Page 87: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

87

Page 88: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

88

Page 89: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

89

Page 90: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

90

Page 91: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

91

Page 92: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

92

Page 93: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

93

Page 94: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

94

Page 95: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

95

Page 96: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

96

Page 97: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

97

Page 98: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

98

Page 99: 1 Acute STEMI: current approach. 2 3 4 5 6 7 NSTEACS vs. STEACS Non occluding culprit lesion in 60-85 % Autolysis Recurrent ischemia/MI No time dependent.

99

PPI should be used in patients with history of prior GI who require DAPT.

PPI use is reasonable in patients with increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (advanced age, concomitant use of warfarin, steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, H pylori infection, etc.) who require DAPT.

Routine use of a PPI is not recommended for patients at low risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, who have much less potential to benefit from prophylactic therapy.

PPIs and Antiplatelet Therapy

IIIaIIbIII

IIIaIIbIII

IIIaIIbIII

No Benefit


Recommended