No abstract

Background: To compare between the outcomes of streptokinase and primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction. The inappropriate treatment, misdiagnosis, contraindications of procedures can result in complications of procedures and increased mortality of patients. The present study aimed to compare between the outcomes of streptokinase and primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients to minimize the death rates in MI patients.Methodology: The descriptive study was conducted at Gulab Devi Chest Hospital. All the samples were collected from cardiac department. A Performa was designed for recording the risk factors, ST elevation, clinical findings and lab results of the patients.Results: In this cross-sectional study of 100 patients, the mean age was 51.02+ 10.956. Male gender was predominant. There were more chances (67.00%) of acute LVF in streptokinase and less chances (21.00%) in primary PCI. According to this study, there was more chances (67.00%) of cardiogenic shock in streptokinase and less chances (21.00%) in primary PCI. In this study, there were equal chances of stroke in streptokinase and primary PCI. In this study there were more chances (28.00%) of bleeding from any site in streptokinase and less chances (0%) in primary PCI. According to results there were chances (24.00%) of renal failure in streptokinase and less chances (0%) in primary PCI. There were more chances (9.43%) of rescue PCI in streptokinase and less chances in primary PCI. In this study, there were more chances of arrhythmias (26.41%) in streptokinase patients and less chances in primary PCI. In this study, there were also more chances of death (1.92%) in streptokinase and less chance in primary PCI. So according to my study primary PCI was better than streptokinase with less complications.Conclusion: Primary PCI was better than streptokinase to cure the myocardial infarction and better to minimize the complications after procedure.