文摘
This study investigated the safety and efficacy of a pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in the context of a real-world system.p>
Background
<p id="abspara0015">Primary PCI continues to be the optimal reperfusion therapy; however, in areas where PCI centers are not readily available, a pharmacoinvasive strategy has been proposed.p>Methods
<p id="abspara0020">The University of Ottawa Heart Institute regional STEMI system provides a primary PCI strategy for patients presenting within a 90-km radius from the PCI center, and a pharmacoinvasive strategy for patients outside this limit. We included all confirmed STEMI patients between April 2009 and May 2011. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of mortality, reinfarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding.p>Results
<p id="abspara0025">We identified 236 and 980 consecutive patients enrolled in pharmacoinvasive and primary PCI strategies, respectively. The median door-to-needle time was 31 min in the pharmacoinvasive group and the median door-to-balloon time was 95 min in the primary PCI group. In a multivariable model, there was no significant difference in the primary efficacy outcome (odds ratio: 1.54; p = 0.21); however, the propensity for more bleeding with a pharmacoinvasive strategy approached statistical significance (odds ratio: 2.02; p = 0.08).p>Conclusions
<p id="abspara0030">Within the context of a STEMI system, a pharmacoinvasive strategy was associated with similar rates of the composite of mortality, reinfarction, or stroke as compared with a primary PCI strategy; however, there was a propensity for more bleeding with a pharmacoinvasive strategy.
