Key result
Pre-PCI intracoronary thrombolysis in high-thrombus STEMI associates with ~61% lower NACE risk versus primary stenting.
Why the study?
High thrombus burden during primary PCI begets poor outcomes, leaving several lacunas in management.
Does intracoronary thrombolysis reduce Net Adverse Clinical Events in patients undergoing primary PCI with high thrombus burden?
Observational (n=108)
No
Does intracoronary thrombolysis reduce Net Adverse Clinical Events in patients undergoing primary PCI with high thrombus burden?
In patients with high thrombus burden undergoing primary PCI, adjunctive intracoronary thrombolysis did not significantly reduce the primary composite outcome compared to primary stenting alone, though long-term event-free survival curves separated.
Should not change primary PCI practice; hypothesis-generating for adjunctive intracoronary thrombolysis in high-thrombus STEMI.
OBJECTIVES: High thrombus burden during Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention begets poor outcomes; there are several lacunas in the management of those patients.- The purpose of this study is to analyse the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with high thrombus burden, treated with intracoronary thrombolysis as an adjunctive therapy. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 108 consecutive primary percutaneous coronary intervention patients with high thrombus burden were stratified into two groups basing on whether they received intracoronary thrombolytic agent before stent implantation. The primary outcome is Net Adverse Clinical Events. Secondary outcomes include Major Adverse Cardiac Events, and all other individual components of the Net Adverse Clinical Events when analysed separately. RESULTS: The primary outcome events occurred in 21 patients (26 %) in the Primary stent group (n = 80), whereas it occurred in 2 patients (6 %) in the primary intra-coronary thrombolysis group (n = 28), this study shows that there is no difference in primary endpoints in both groups (26 % Vs 7 %, p-value - .042, Hazard ratio - 2.56; 95 % CI - .76-8.57), however Kaplan-Meier event-free survival curves show that both the curves are well separated apart even at the end of the one year of follow - up. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in the primary outcome events in both groups, however there was a consistent increase in events in the primary stent group over the one-year follow-up period. These findings suggest the need for a larger randomized clinical trial to confirm and further elucidate these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarma et al. (2025) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with high thrombus burden (n=108). Intracoronary thrombolysis (Tenecteplase) vs. Primary angioplasty with stent (no thrombolytic) was evaluated on Net Adverse Clinical Events (NACE) (HR 2.56, 95% CI 0.76-8.57, p=0.042). Intracoronary thrombolysis prior to primary PCI in STEMI patients with high thrombus burden resulted in a 7% rate of Net Adverse Clinical Events at one year compared to 26% in the primary stent group (HR 2.56).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: