Heart‐Brain Team Approach of Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicating Acute Stroke: Characteristics of Guideline‐Recommended Coronary Revascularization and Antithrombotic Therapy and Cardiovascular and Bleeding Outcomes
Toshiaki Suzuki,Yu Kataoka,Masayuki Shiozawa,Kensuke Morris,Eri Kiyoshige,Kunihiro Nishimura,Kota Murai,Kenichiro Sawada,Takamasa Iwai,Hideo Matama,Satoshi Honda,Masashi Fujino,Shuichi Yoneda,Kensuke Takagi,Fumiyuki Otsuka,Yasuhide Asaumi,Masatoshi Koga,Masafumi Ihara,Kazunori Toyoda,Kenichi Tsujita,Teruo Noguchi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.027156
2023-01-17
JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association
Abstract:Journal of the American Heart Association, Ahead of Print. BackgroundAcute myocardial infarction (AMI) infrequently occurs after acute stroke. The Heart‐brain team approach has a potential to appropriately manage this poststroke cardiovascular complication. However, clinical outcomes of AMI complicating acute stroke (AMI‐CAS) with the heart‐brain team approach have not been characterized. The current study investigated cardiovascular outcomes in patients with AMI‐CAS managed by a heart‐brain team.Methods and ResultsWe retrospectively analyzed 2390 patients with AMI at our institute (January 1, 2007–September 30, 2020). AMI‐CAS was defined as the occurrence of AMI within 14 days after acute stroke. Major adverse cerebral/cardiovascular events (cardiac‐cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) and major bleeding events were compared in subjects with AMI‐CAS and those without acute stroke. AMI‐CAS was identified in 1.6% of the subjects. Most AMI‐CASs (37/39=94.9%) presented ischemic stroke. Median duration of AMI from the onset of acute stroke was 2 days. Patients with AMI‐CAS less frequently received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (43.6% versus 84.7%;P<0.001) and dual‐antiplatelet therapy (38.5% versus 85.7%;P<0.001), and 33.3% of them did not receive any antithrombotic agents (versus 1.3%;P<0.001). During the observational period (median, 2.4 years [interquartile range, 1.1–4.4 years]), patients with AMI‐CAS exhibited a greater likelihood of experiencing major adverse cerebral/cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR], 3.47 [95% CI, 1.99–6.05];P<0.001) and major bleeding events (HR, 3.30 [95% CI, 1.34–8.10];P=0.009). These relationships still existed even after adjusting for clinical characteristics and medication use (major adverse cerebral/cardiovascular event: HR, 1.87 [95% CI, 1.02–3.42];P=0.04; major bleeding: HR, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.03–6.93];P=0.04).ConclusionsUnder the heart‐brain team approach, AMI‐CAS was still a challenging disease, reflected by less adoption of primary percutaneous coronary intervention and antithrombotic therapies, with substantially elevated cardiovascular and major bleeding risks. Our findings underscore the need for a further refined approach to mitigate their ischemic/bleeding risks.
English Else