Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background and Aims Although the clinical benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on cardiovascular outcomes has been widely investigated, the impact of this revascularization strategy compared to other alternatives on the degree of left ventricular function recovery is poorly demonstrated. In this regard, we investigated whether time delays between the presentation of ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and PCI in reperfusion strategies have different impacts on left ventricular function recovery. Methods In this single‐center study, all the patients who presented with STEMI and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) were enrolled. Included patients were subjected to four different treatment groups of primary, rescue (immediate transfer for angioplasty due to failed fibrinolytic therapy), facilitated (fibrinolytic therapy followed by angioplasty within 24 h), and deferred (successful fibrinolytic therapy and PCI after 24 h) PCI based on hospital facilities. Echocardiography was performed for all the patients at the time of hospitalization and 6 months later. Results A total of 128 patients were included in this study. The LVEF improved by 15.3 ± 6.3%, 11.5 ± 3.61%, 4.0 ± 1.0%, and −1.3 ± 7.0% in primary, rescue, facilitated, and deferred PCI groups, respectively ( p < 0.001). Patients undergoing deferred PCI experienced a significantly lower improvement in LVEF compared with primary and rescue PCI ( p < 0.001). Conclusion Primary PCI demonstrated the most promising recovery in left ventricular function following STEMI compared to other alternative strategies. Performing PCI as soon as possible provides better recovery of LVEF.
Attar et al. (Sat,) studied this question.