Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026

Improvement of a Closed Chest Porcine Myocardial Infarction Model by Standardization of Tissue and Blood Sampling Procedures
Published on: March 12, 2018
Door-to-balloon delays with percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction
Duane S Pinto1, Matthew Southard, Lauren Ciaglo
1Cardiovascular Division, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Insights
Restoring blood flow quickly in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is crucial. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior if timely, but fibrinolysis is an option for delayed PCI, emphasizing rapid treatment for better outcomes.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Emergency Medicine
Background:
- Reperfusion therapy is critical for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
- The benefits of reperfusion are time-dependent, regardless of the method used.
- Timely restoration of blood flow minimizes myocardial damage and improves outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the benefits and limitations of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus fibrinolysis for STEMI.
- To emphasize the importance of rapid reperfusion therapy in STEMI management.
Main Methods:
- Review of current literature comparing primary PCI and fibrinolysis for STEMI.
- Analysis of time-dependent benefits and limitations of each reperfusion strategy.
Main Results:
- Both primary PCI and fibrinolysis restore epicardial blood flow, but PCI offers more predictable success.
- Fibrinolysis has limitations including unpredictable efficacy, reinfarction, and intracranial hemorrhage.
- PCI is limited by implementation delays, especially for transfer patients.
Conclusions:
- Primary PCI is the superior reperfusion strategy for STEMI when implemented rapidly by trained personnel.
- Fibrinolysis should be considered when significant delays in primary PCI are anticipated.
- Reducing time to reperfusion therapy for STEMI, whether PCI or fibrinolysis, is paramount.
Abstract:
The benefits of reperfusion in ST-elevation myocardial infarction are time-dependent no matter if epicardial blood flow is restored with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or fibrinolysis. Rapid, sustained, and early restoration of flow in the infarct-related artery is necessary to minimize myocardial damage and to improve clinical outcomes. Though fibrinolytic therapy is widely available, it is limited by unpredictable efficacy, reinfarction, and intracranial hemorrhage. PCI has predictable success in opening the artery but is limited by delays in implementation, particularly in transfer patients. The selection of PCI or fibrinolytic therapy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction should be based on knowledge of the benefits and limitations of each strategy. While PCI is the superior strategy if employed rapidly by competent personnel, fibrinolytic therapy should be considered when significant delays to implementation of PCI are anticipated. Continued efforts, aimed at reducing the time to therapy with PCI and fibrinolysis, are of paramount importance.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Cardiac Catheterization I: Pre-Procedure Overview
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
