Outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention or pharmacoinvasive strategy in a Latin American country
- PMID: 35768779
- PMCID: PMC9244071
- DOI: 10.1186/s12872-022-02730-6
Outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention or pharmacoinvasive strategy in a Latin American country
Abstract
Objective: The primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The pharmacoinvasive strategy (PIs) is a reasonable alternative when prompt PPCI is not possible, especially in resource-limited regions. We aimed to compare PPCI versus PIs outcomes in Peru.
Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study based on the second Peruvian Registry of STEMI (PERSTEMI II). We compared the characteristics, in-hospital outcomes and 30-day mortality of patients undergoing PPCI during the first 12 h and those receiving a PIs. A propensity score-matched analysis was conducted to compare the effects of each treatment strategy on clinical outcomes.
Results: PIs patients were younger than PPCI patients, had a shorter first medical contact time, first medical contact to reperfusion time, and total ischemic time until reperfusion. Successful PCI was more frequent in the PIs group (84.4% vs. 71.1%, p = 0.035). There were no differences between PIs and PPCI in terms of total in-hospital mortality (5.2% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.703), cardiovascular mortality (4.2% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.735), cardiogenic shock (8.3% vs. 13.2%, p = 0.326), heart failure (19.8% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.112), or major bleeding (0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.194). In the propensity score-matched analysis, the rates of cardiovascular mortality, postinfarction heart failure and successful reperfusion were similar.
Conclusions: In this real-world study, no differences were found in the in-hospital outcomes between patients with STEMI who received PIs or PPCI.
Keywords: Heart failure; Mortality; Myocardial infarction; Peru; Reperfusion.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Figures
References
-
- Araiza-Garaygordobil D, Gopar-Nieto R, Cabello-López A, Martinez-Amezcua P, Eid-Lidt G, Baeza-Herrera LA, et al. Pharmacoinvasive strategy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: results from a study in Mexico city. CJC Open. 2020;3(4):409–418. doi: 10.1016/j.cjco.2020.11.012. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- Bainey KR, Armstrong PW, Zheng Y, Brass N, Tyrrell BD, Leung R, et al. Pharmacoinvasive strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction in clinical practice: insights from the Vital Heart Response Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(10):e008059. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.119.008059. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Sim DS, Jeong MH, Ahn Y, Kim YJ, Chae SC, Hong TJ, et al. Pharmacoinvasive strategy versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a propensity score-matched analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(9):e003508. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003508. - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous
