Facilitated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The comparison of procedural and clinical outcomes of thrombolytic-facilitated and primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI): Findings from PROVE/ACS study

BACKGROUND

There is still a controversy in the preferred method of reperfusion in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), when the achievement of well-defined "golden time" is difficult. We sought to evaluate the procedural and in-hospital outcomes of the strategy of "thrombolytic administration and rescue or routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)" versus "primary PCI (PPCI)" strategy in acute STEMI.

METHODS

In this observational prospective study, the data of 237 patients with acute STEMI presented or referred to Chamran Cardiovascular Research Center in Isfahan, Iran, were collected (PROVE/ACS study). Baseline characteristics, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade of infarct-related artery (IRA), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and in-hospital outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 61.4 ± 13.0 years, 86.9% were men, 13.1% were diabetic, and 67.9% had anterior STEMI. Patients in the "thrombolytic then PCI" group were younger, more smoker, more often male with higher body weight and lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). The pre-PCI TIMI flow grade 3 was more often seen in the "thrombolytic then PCI" group (39.4% vs. 21.0%, P < 0.001) and less thrombectomy was performed in this group of patients (12.9% vs. 26.7%, P = 0.011). Time to reperfusion was significantly longer in PPCI group (182.4 ± 233.7 minutes vs. 44.6 ± 93.4 minutes, respectively, P < 0.001). No difference in mortality, mean of LVEF, and incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was observed in two groups.

CONCLUSION

If the PPCI strategy could not be performed in the golden time, the strategy of thrombolytic administration and rescue or routine PCI leads to more initial IRA patency and less thrombectomy with similar clinical outcomes.

Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Strategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction trial and the French Registry of Acute ST-elevation or Non-ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction 2015 suggested that pharmacoinvasive strategy compares favorably with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We sought to assess the clinical impact of pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with PPCI in real-world patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We used the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry to identify ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving either pharmacoinvasive strategy defined as fibrinolysis followed by percutaneous coronary intervention (rescue/urgent or routine elective; n=708) or PPCI (n=8878). Patients receiving facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention within 3 hours from fibrinolysis were excluded. Propensity-matched 12-month clinical outcome was compared. In the propensity-matched cohort (n=706 in each group), the pharmacoinvasive group had shorter time to reperfusion therapy (165 versus 241 minutes; P<0.001) and higher rate of pre-percutaneous coronary intervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade 3 (50.4% versus 13.7%; P<0.001). Incidences of major bleeding and stroke during hospitalization were not different. Twelve-month rates of death and major adverse cardiac events (composite of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery) were similar between pharmacoinvasive strategy and PPCI: 4.4% versus 4.1% and 7.5% versus 7.8%, respectively. Equipoise between pharmacoinvasive strategy and PPCI for 12-month major adverse cardiac events occurred when percutaneous coronary intervention-related delay was ≈100 minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving pharmacoinvasive treatment, compared with PPCI, had shorter time to reperfusion, higher culprit-vessel patency, and similar 12-month clinical outcome.

Facilitated/pharmaco-invasive approaches in STEMI

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion method in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), when performed in a timely manner and by skilled operators. However, this strategy has shown to be limited in environments with lack of PCI facilities and delay in the first medical contact-to-balloon time for logistic reasons. Pretreatment with fibrinolysis and/or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors before PCI has the potential to provide early pharmacologic reperfusion before definitive PCI in STEMI patients. However, current data suggest that facilitated PCI does not offer any advantage over primary PCI. Conversely, a role for pharmacoinvasive recanalization, defined as pharmacological reperfusion followed by rapid transfer for routine delayed coronary angiography and PCI may still be considered in centers without on-site PCI capability.