Key result
Pretransfer fibrinolysis compared with pPCI in transferred STEMI patients showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (3.7% vs 3.9%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94-1.36) but higher bleeding risk.
Why the study?
Does pretransfer fibrinolysis compared to primary PCI improve in-hospital mortality and major bleeding in patients with STEMI requiring interhospital transfer?
Observational (n=22,481)
Yes
Does pretransfer fibrinolysis compared to primary PCI improve in-hospital mortality and major bleeding in patients with STEMI requiring interhospital transfer?
Odds Ratio: 1.13 (95% CI 0.94–1.36)
Absolute Event Rate: 3.7% vs 3.9%
In STEMI patients requiring interhospital transfer, pretransfer fibrinolysis yields similar in-hospital mortality to pPCI but with a slightly higher risk of major bleeding, suggesting it is a viable option when timely pPCI cannot be achieved.
Similar mortality but higher bleeding with pretransfer fibrinolysis; leaves open its role when timely pPCI is unavailable.
IMPORTANCE: Guidelines for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend timely reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) or fibrinolysis. Among patients with STEMI who require interhospital transfer, it is unclear how reperfusion strategy selection and outcomes vary with interhospital drive times. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of estimated interhospital drive times with reperfusion strategy selection among transferred patients with STEMI in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 22,481 patients eligible for pPCI or fibrinolysis who were transferred from 1771 STEMI referring centers to 366 STEMI receiving centers in the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines database between July 1, 2008, and March 31, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality and major bleeding. RESULTS: The median estimated interhospital drive time was 57 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 36-88 minutes). When the estimated drive time exceeded 30 minutes, only 42.6% of transfer patients treated with pPCI achieved the first door-to-balloon time within 120 minutes. Only 52.7% of eligible patients with a drive time exceeding 60 minutes received fibrinolysis. Among 15,437 patients with estimated drive times of 30 to 120 minutes who were eligible for fibrinolysis or pPCI, 5296 (34.3%) received pretransfer fibrinolysis, with a median door-to-needle time of 34 minutes (IQR, 23-53 minutes). After fibrinolysis, the median time to transfer to the STEMI receiving center was 49 minutes (IQR, 34-69 minutes), and 97.1% underwent follow-up angiography. Patients treated with fibrinolysis vs pPCI had no significant mortality difference (3.7% vs 3.9%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.94-1.36) but had higher bleeding risk (10.7% vs 9.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.33). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the United States, neither fibrinolysis nor pPCI is being optimally used to achieve guideline-recommended reperfusion targets. For patients who are unlikely to receive timely pPCI, pretransfer fibrinolysis, followed by early transfer for angiography, may be a reperfusion option when potential benefits of timely reperfusion outweigh bleeding risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vora et al. (2014) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=22,481). Fibrinolysis vs. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94-1.36). Pretransfer fibrinolysis compared with pPCI in transferred STEMI patients showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (3.7% vs 3.9%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94-1.36) but higher bleeding risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: