Why the study?
In areas where PCI centers are not readily available, a pharmacoinvasive strategy has been proposed for STEMI, but its safety and efficacy compared with primary PCI required evaluation in Gaza.
Does a pharmaco-invasive strategy with streptokinase reduce the composite of death, shock, and congestive heart failure compared to primary PCI in patients with acute STEMI presenting within 2 hours?
Does a pharmaco-invasive strategy with streptokinase reduce the composite of death, shock, and congestive heart failure compared to primary PCI in patients with acute STEMI presenting within 2 hours?
A pharmaco-invasive strategy with streptokinase followed by PCI is comparable to primary PCI for early-presenting STEMI patients when primary PCI cannot be performed within 1 hour.
Pharmaco-invasive streptokinase strategy yields comparable outcomes to primary PCI in early STEMI; supports use when timely primary PCI is unavailable.
Background A primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) Primary PCI continues to be the optimal reperfusion therapy in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction however, in areas where PCI centers are not readily available, a pharmacoinvasive strategy has been proposed. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of a pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with primary (PCI) strategy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in Gaza. Methods: We randomized 145 patients presenting within 2 hours of symptom onset of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction to primary CPI (PCI) or for pharmaco-invasive PCI 2-24 hours after streptokinase, except in the event of failed reperfusion, in which case, emergency angiography was recommended. The primary endpoint a composite of death, shock and congestive heart failure at 30 days. Results: Total 145 patients with mean age 56.5+10.48 years. (The mean age of patients is) The primary endpoint in primary PCI (17%) and in pharmaco-invasive PCI (16.1%) p = 0.24.???? There was no difference in 30-day mortality (4.7 % in primary PCI and 4.9% in pharmacoinvasive strategy (P=0.94). Secondary endpoints:Emergency angiography was required in 39.5% of the patients in the pharmaco-invasive strategy and the median time for underwent angiography was 6 hours after randomization. TIMI major bleeding occurred among 4 patients ( 4.9 % ) in the pharmacoinvasive group and in 2 patients (3.1%) of the primary PCI group (P = 0.59).The pharmacoinvasive group had 1.9 times the odds of having TIMI major bleed compared with the primary PCI group Conclusions In this randomized trial, early-presenting STEMI patients unable to undergo primary PCI within 1 hour (median, 75±20 minutes) were randomized to primary PCI or a pharmaco-invasive strategy with streptokinase followed by PCI. At 1 month follow-up, there was no statistical difference in all-cause mortality, heart failure or shock. This study suggests that, if primary PCI cannot be performed within 1 hour of presentation, a pharmaco-invasive strategy may be as good as primary PCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hasirah et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: