Meta-Analysis Comparing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Pharmacoinvasive Therapy in Transfer Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
The American journal of cardiology · 2018-06-20 · Meta-analysis
Abstract
ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting at non-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-capable hospitals often need to be transferred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). This increases time to revascularization, leading to increased risk of in-hospital mortality. With recent focus on total ischemic time rather than door-to-balloon time as the principal determinant of outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, pharmacoinvasive therapy (PIT) has gained attention as a possible improvement over PPCI in patients requiring transfer. Our objective was to observe how PIT stands against PPCI in terms of safety and efficacy. Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing PPCI to PIT. PIT was defined as administration of thrombolytic drugs followed by immediate PCI only in case of failed thrombolysis. Results from studies were pooled using a random-effects model. We identified 17 relevant studies (6 randomized controlled trials, 11 observational studies) including 13,037 patients. Overall, there was no significant difference in short-term mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20 [0.97 to 1.49]; I2 = 14.2%; p = 0.099); however, PIT significantly decreased short-term mortality (OR = 1.46 [1.08 to 1.96]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.01) in those studies with a symptom-onset-to-device time ≥200 minutes. There was a significantly lower risk reinfarction (OR = 0.69 [0.49 to 0.97]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.033) in the PPCI group, while the risk of cardiogenic shock was significantly higher (OR = 1.48 [1.13 to 1.94]; I2 = 0%; p = 0.005). In conclusion, PIT versus PPCI decisions should preferably be customized in patients presenting to non-PCI capable hospitals. Factors that need to be considered include symptom-onset to first medical contact time, expected time of transfer to a PCI-capable hospital, and patients risk factors.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Antithrombotics & thrombolytics · Interfacility & critical care transport · Mortality & survival · Thrombolytics · Time intervals
Related articles
- Routine early angioplasty after fibrinolysis for acute myocardial infarction. (N Engl J Med, 2009)
- The Danish multicentre randomized study of fibrinolytic therapy vs. primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (the DANAMI-2 trial): outcome after 3 years follow-up. (Eur Heart J, 2008)
- Transfer with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban for primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs. on-site thrombolysis in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): a randomized open-label study for patients admitted to community hospitals. (Eur Heart J, 2007)
- Multicentre randomized trial comparing transport to primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis vs combined strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to a community hospital without a catheterization laboratory. The PRAGUE study. (Eur Heart J, 2000)
- Temporal improvements in prehospital systems-of-care for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients in Victoria, Australia: a retrospective study. (BMC Emerg Med, 2026)
- Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in the pharmaco-invasive era of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the STREAM-2 trial. (Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care, 2026)