P rimary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion therapy for most patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).1 However, many patients fail to receive timely PPCI because of geographical or logistical issues. In such cases, pharmacoinvasive strategy where fibrinolysis is followed by immediate Background-The Strategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction trial and the French Registry of Acute STelevation 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. In contrast, facilitated PCI consisting of fibrinolysis followed by immediate planned PCI is not recommended because of increased risk of death, intracranial hemorrhage, and ischemic events. 4,5 There are currently few large-scale studies that provide data regarding the efficacy of pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with PPCI in real-world STEMI patients. In the present study, we sought to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcome of patients with STEMI undergoing pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with PPCI using KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry).
Methods
Study Population and Data CollectionThe study population was derived from KAMIR between November 2005 and December 2011. KAMIR is the fi...