Why the study?
Does a pharmacoinvasive strategy improve outcomes compared to primary angioplasty in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction?
Does a pharmacoinvasive strategy improve outcomes compared to primary angioplasty in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction?
This review discusses the importance of timely reperfusion strategies, specifically comparing pharmacoinvasive strategy versus primary angioplasty for STEMI, with a focus on the healthcare context in Mexico.
May inform Mexico-specific STEMI protocols; leaves open whether pharmacoinvasive strategy improves outcomes versus primary angioplasty.
"Time is Myocardium", more than a phrase or slogan is an implicit reminder for health personnel about the importance of detecting and treating patients with ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) in a timely manner to offer them the patient a better prognosis and better quality of life. Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death worldwide, and it is estimated that 17.9 million lives are claimed each year, since 2020 the number of deaths due to heart disease has increased by 2 million people 9 million people in 2019. CVDs include: coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, heart disease, rheumatic disease among others. Four out of 5 CVD deaths are due to strokes, and a third of these deaths occur prematurely in people under 70 years of age. 80% of Cardiovascular Diseases (CVD) and Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) are preventable, as well as more than 75% of deaths caused by CVD occur in low-and middle-income countries [1]. In Mexico, various strategies are carried out to carry out a rapid response and timely treatment of AMI, following the Infarction Code protocol and the National Program for the Reduction of Mortality from Acute Myocardial Infarction AMI-MX (PREMIA), position that Mexico has a hospital mortality rate from AMI three times higher than the average of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries (28.1 vs. 7.5 deaths per 100 discharges) in 45-year-old patients. age and over and 1 in 2 patients with AMI do not receive any type of reperfusion therapy, as well as 1 in 4 unfortunately dies [2].
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soto Páramo Dejanira Georgina (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: