Alteplase: double bolus versus accelerated regimen

• Published in: Medical science monitor Vol. 8; no. 10; pp. PI85 - PI92
• Main Authors: Ruiz-Bailén, Manuel, Aguayo de Hoyos, Eduardo, Hurtado-Ruiz, Benjamín, Reina-Toral, Antonio, Díaz-Castellanos, Miguel Angel, Issa-Khozouz, Ziad
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.10.2002
• Subjects: Aged; Cohort Studies; Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Fibrinolytic Agents - administration & dosage; Fibrinolytic Agents - therapeutic use; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction - drug therapy; Myocardial Infarction - mortality; Retrospective Studies; Stroke - epidemiology; Stroke - mortality; Tissue Plasminogen Activator - administration & dosage; Tissue Plasminogen Activator - therapeutic use
• ISSN: 1234-1010

The purpose of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of alteplase in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), when administered in a double bolus regimen or an accelerated regimen during admission to an intensive care or coronary care unit (ICU/CCU). A retrospective cohort study including all the AMI patients treated with alteplase recorded in the ARIAM register (Analysis of Delay in AMI), a multi-center register in which 77 Spanish hospitals participate. The study period was from January 1995 to January 2000. 4,615 AMI patients were studied. The accelerated regimen (Group I) was administered to 57.51% (2,654 patients) and the remaining 42.49% (1,961 patients) received the double bolus regimen (Group II). There were no differences in mortality or in the incidence of hemorrhagic stroke between the groups. The mortality was 7.15% in Group I versus 6.43% in Group II (not significant). The incidence of hemorrhagic stroke was 1.09% in Group I versus 1.22% in Group II (not significant). Fewer coronary angiographies were required in Group I (6.28% vs. 8.99%; p<0.001) and fewer rescue angioplasties (10.67% vs. 21.88%, p=0.03). Group I also showed a smaller requirement for stent insertion (2.45% vs. 4.77%; p<0.0001) and for assistance using intra-aortic balloon contrapulsation (0.47% vs. 1.36%; p=0.02). The two regimens appear to be similar in efficacy and safety. Nevertheless, from these results it may be hypothesized that further revascularization techniques are required after double bolus administration.