EFFECTS OF HIGH-INTENSITY STATINS PRELOADING ON TIMI FLOW IN PATIENTS PRESENTING WITH ACUTE ST ELEVATION MI UNDERGOING PRIMARY PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION AT TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL

Abstract

Background : Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has improved the outcomes from STEMI and improved myocardial perfusion.  The aim of this study was to assess the impact of high-intensity statins used prior to primary PCI in patients presenting with acute STEMI on myocardial perfusion.

Methodology: The study included 200 patients who presented with acute STEMI to National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases Karachi and underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). They were divided into two groups where the first group received high-intensity statins (80 mg of atorvastatin or 20 mg of rosuvastatin) besides guideline-recommended therapy before primary PCI and the second group served as a control group and received guideline-recommended therapy, and high-intensity statins were given as usual after going back to the coronary care unit after primary PCI. Post-interventional thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade and myocardial blush grade (MBG) were recorded, and ST-segment resolution was measured.

Results: The LAD was the culprit vessel for the majority of patients in both groups. In the control group, there were 4 patients with TIMI I flow and MBG I, 13 with TIMI II flow and MBG II, and 68 with TIMI III flow and MBG III. Meanwhile, in the cases group, there was 1 patient with TIMI I flow and MBG I, 3 with TIMI II flow and MBG II, and 81 with TIMI III flow and MBG III. This difference was statistically significant with a P value of 0.010. There were 34 patients in the cases group who showed complete ST-segment resolution (40%) vs. 19 patients (22.4%) in the control group which was statistically significant with a P value of 0.013. In addition, ejection fraction had values of mean ± SD of 45.91 ± 5.49 in the cases group vs. 43.01 ± 8.80 in the control group which was statistically significant with a P value of 0.011.