Late outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by pharmaco-invasive or primary percutaneous coronary intervention
Javeria Jamal, Hanan Idris, A. Faour, Wesley Yang, Alison McLean, Sonya Burgess, I. Shugman, K. Wales, Aiden O’Loughlin, Dominic Y. Leung, C. Mussap, C. Juergens, S. Lo, J. French
Abstract
AIMS: Pharmaco-invasive percutaneous coronary intervention (PI-PCI) is recommended for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)who are unable to undergo timely primary PCI (pPCI). The present study examined late outcomes after PI-PCI (successful reperfusion followed by scheduled PCI or failed reperfusion and rescue PCI)compared with timely and late pPCI (>120 min from first medical contact). METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients with STEMI presenting within 12 h of symptom onset, who underwent PCI during their initial hospitalization at Liverpool Hospital (Sydney), from October 2003 to March 2014, were included. Amongst 2091 STEMI patients (80% male), 1077 (52%)underwent pPCI (68% timely, 32% late), and 1014 (48%)received PI-PCI (33% rescue, 67% scheduled). Mortality at 3 years was 11.1% after pPCI (6.7% timely, 20.2% late) and 6.2% after PI-PCI (9.4% rescue, 4.8% scheduled); P < 0.01. After propensity matching, the adjusted mortality hazard ratio (HR) for timely pPCI compared with scheduled PCI was 0.9 (95% CIs 0.4-2.0) and compared with rescue PCI was 0.5 (95% CIs 0.2-0.9). The adjusted mortality HR for late pPCI, compared with scheduled PCI was 2.2 (95% CIs 1.2-3.1)and compared with rescue PCI, it was 1.5 (95% CIs 0.7-2.0). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent late pPCI had higher mortality rates than those undergoing a pharmaco-invasive strategy. Despite rescue PCI being required in a third of patients, a pharmaco-invasive approach should be considered when delays to PCI are anticipated, as it achieves better outcomes than late pPCI.