Key result
Late primary percutaneous coronary intervention (>120 min) was associated with lower 5-year survival compared with a pharmaco-invasive strategy (79.5% vs 89.8%; adjusted HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.13-2.02).
Why the study?
Direct evidence supporting guideline-recommended reperfusion strategies in STEMI is lacking, and in real-world situations, primary PCI is often performed beyond recommended timelines.
Does timely or late primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared to a pharmaco-invasive strategy improve 5-year survival in STEMI patients?
Observational (n=2,942)
Yes
Does timely or late primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared to a pharmaco-invasive strategy improve 5-year survival in STEMI patients?
Hazard Ratio: 1.51 (95% CI 1.13–2.02)
Absolute Event Rate: 79.5% vs 89.8%
In STEMI patients, a pharmaco-invasive strategy yields better 5-year survival than late pPCI and similar survival to timely pPCI, supporting current guideline recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May favor pharmaco-invasive strategy when primary PCI exceeds 120 min; leaves open randomized confirmation.
Danchin et al. (2019) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=2,942). Late primary percutaneous coronary intervention (>120 min) vs. Pharmaco-invasive strategy was evaluated on 5-year survival (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.13-2.02). Late primary percutaneous coronary intervention (>120 min) was associated with lower 5-year survival compared with a pharmaco-invasive strategy (79.5% vs 89.8%; adjusted HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.13-2.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: