Background: 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).
Material/methods: 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.
Results: 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).
Conclusions: 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.