Key result
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention significantly improved two-year survival compared to no primary reperfusion treatment in patients with STEMI (HR 0.4, p < 0.001).
Why the study?
Does primary reperfusion therapy improve 2-year survival in STEMI patients compared to no primary reperfusion therapy?
Population
1,580 patients with acute coronary syndromes admitted to hospitals in Slovakia in 2011, with a focus on the…
Comparison
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention or… vs No primary reperfusion therapy
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Loading...
Supports primary PCI consideration in STEMI; leaves open randomized confirmation of survival benefit.
Observational (n=484)
Yes
Does primary reperfusion therapy improve 2-year survival in STEMI patients compared to no primary reperfusion therapy?
Effect estimate: HR 0.4
p-value: p=<0.001
Primary PCI significantly improves 2-year survival in STEMI patients compared to no reperfusion therapy, with shorter ischemic times associated with better outcomes.
Studenčan et al. (2014) conducted an observational in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=484). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) vs. No primary reperfusion treatment was evaluated on Two-year survival (HR 0.4, p=<0.001). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention significantly improved two-year survival compared to no primary reperfusion treatment in patients with STEMI (HR 0.4, p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: