Key result
Primary PCI linked to ~61% lower mortality versus fibrinolytics when delays are under an hour.
Why the study?
Contemporaneous data informing the comparative benefits of primary PCI versus onsite fibrinolytic therapy for STEMI, particularly in developing countries, have been largely understudied.
Population
19 334 matched STEMI patients in China
Comparison
Primary PCI vs onsite fibrinolytic therapy
Design
Nationwide registry-based quasi-experimental propensity score-matched study
Authors
Loading...
Short PCI delays may favor primary PCI over fibrinolysis in registry data; leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
Observational (n=19,334)
Yes
Absolute Event Rate: 2.34% vs 6.01%
Zhou et al. (2025) conducted an observational in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (n=19,334). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs. Onsite fibrinolytic therapy was evaluated on Mortality. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention reduced mortality compared to onsite fibrinolytic therapy when PCI-related delays were <60 minutes (2.34% vs 6.01%), but lost benefit at 119.51 minutes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: