Key result
Primary angioplasty was associated with lower 1-month mortality than thrombolysis (4.5% vs 6.4%; OR 0.68, 95% CrI 0.46-1.01), though the benefit decreases with longer time delays.
Why the study?
Does primary angioplasty improve clinical outcomes compared to thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and how is this benefit affected by time delay?
Meta-Analysis (n=7,518)
Yes
Does primary angioplasty improve clinical outcomes compared to thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction, and how is this benefit affected by time delay?
Odds Ratio: 0.68 (95% CI 0.46–1.01)
Absolute Event Rate: 4.5% vs 6.4%
Primary angioplasty is superior to thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction when the additional time delay is 30-90 minutes, but thrombolysis may be preferred if the delay is around 90 minutes or longer.
Supports primary PCI if additional delay <90 min; extends prior meta-analyses with Bayesian uncertainty estimates.
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of trials have shown greater benefits from angioplasty than thrombolysis after an acute myocardial infarction, but the time delay in initiating angioplasty needs to be considered. OBJECTIVE: To extend earlier meta-analyses by considering 1- and 6-month outcome data for both forms of reperfusion. To use Bayesian statistical methods to quantify the uncertainty associated with the estimated relationships. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2003 was updated. Data on key clinical outcomes and the difference between time-to-balloon and time-to-needle were independently extracted by two researchers. Bayesian statistical methods were used to synthesise evidence despite differences between reported follow-up times and outcomes. Outcomes are presented as absolute probabilities of specific events and odds ratios (ORs; with 95% credible intervals (CrI)) as a function of the additional time delay associated with angioplasty. RESULTS: 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with 3760 and 3758 patients randomised to primary angioplasty and thrombolysis, respectively. The mean (SE) angioplasty-related time delay (over and above time to thrombolysis) was 54.3 (2.2) minutes. For this delay, mean event probabilities were lower for primary angioplasty for all outcomes. Mortality within 1 month was 4.5% after angioplasty and 6.4% after thrombolysis (OR = 0.68 (95% CrI 0.46 to 1.01)). For non-fatal reinfarction, OR = 0.32 (95% CrI 0.20 to 0.51); for non-fatal stroke OR = 0.24 (95% CrI 0.11 to 0.50). For all outcomes, the benefit of angioplasty decreased with longer delay from initiation. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of primary angioplasty, over thrombolysis, depends on the former's additional time delay. For delays of 30-90 minutes, angioplasty is superior for 1-month fatal and non-fatal outcomes. For delays of around 90 minutes thrombolysis may be the preferred option as assessed by 6-month mortality; there is considerable uncertainty for longer time delays.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asseburg et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis in Acute myocardial infarction (n=7,518). Primary angioplasty vs. Thrombolysis was evaluated on Mortality within 1 month (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.01). Primary angioplasty was associated with lower 1-month mortality than thrombolysis (4.5% vs 6.4%; OR 0.68, 95% CrI 0.46-1.01), though the benefit decreases with longer time delays.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: