Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 16, 2026

Postconditioning with Lactate-enriched Blood for Cardioprotection in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Published on: May 28, 2019
Is There Still a Role for Fibrinolysis in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction?
C El Khoury1, F Sibellas, E Bonnefoy
1Intensive and Coronary Care Unit, Cardio-Vascular University Hospital, 59 Bd Pinel, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, 69008, France.
Insights
Modern fibrinolytic strategies, combining immediate treatment with timely percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), offer outcomes comparable to primary PCI for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). These approaches are crucial when immediate PCI is not feasible.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Emergency Medicine
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Fibrinolysis was the standard for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI), reducing mortality but carrying risks like cerebral hemorrhage.
- Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has limitations due to treatment delays, potentially diminishing its benefits compared to fibrinolysis.
- Despite PCI's advantages, fibrinolysis remains relevant in Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) management.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the continued role and modern strategies of fibrinolysis in STEMI management.
- To highlight the benefits of combining fibrinolysis with subsequent PCI in specific patient groups and logistical settings.
- To emphasize the importance of regional healthcare networks for optimizing AMI treatment.
Main Methods:
- Review of current treatment paradigms for STEMI, comparing fibrinolysis and primary PCI.
- Analysis of modern fibrinolytic strategies incorporating immediate fibrinolysis, antiplatelet therapy, and planned PCI.
- Discussion of logistical requirements for effective implementation of these strategies, including hub-and-spoke networks.
Main Results:
- Modern fibrinolytic strategies achieve clinical results similar to primary PCI.
- Fibrinolysis is beneficial for patients experiencing delays in accessing primary PCI.
- A subset of patients (under 75 years, treated early, unable to receive immediate PCI) may benefit most from modern fibrinolytic strategies.
Conclusions:
- Fibrinolysis, when integrated into modern treatment protocols, remains a vital option for STEMI.
- Effective regional healthcare networks and standardized protocols are essential for maximizing the benefits of fibrinolysis-based strategies.
- Ongoing quality improvement initiatives and registries are necessary to ensure proper application of these AMI management strategies.
Opinion Statement:
Fibrinolysis had long been the reference treatment in patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI). It was associated with a large reduction in mortality as compared with delayed or no reperfusion in patients managed early, within the first 2 hours from the onset of symptoms. Fibrinolysis also had well-known potential complications: cerebral haemorrhage, especially in patients beyond 75 years, and reinfarction. Primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) has overcome most of these limitations, but at a price: PCI-related delays that can reduce the expected benefit of primary PCI compared with fibrinolysis. That primary PCI is today the treatment of choice in patients with STEMI is no longer discussed. However, fibrinolysis should still maintain a role in the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for three reasons. First, fibrinolysis is no longer a stand-alone treatment. Modern fibrinolytic strategies combine immediate fibrinolysis, loading dose of thienopyridines, and transfer to a PCI hospital for rescue or early PCI within 24 hours. These strategies capitalize on the hub-and-spoke networks that have, or should have, been built everywhere to implement primary PCI. The overall clinical results of these modern fibrinolytic strategies are now similar to those of primary PCI. Second, a substantial number of patients cannot be managed with primary PCI within the reasonable time thresholds set by the guidelines. In the case of long PCI-related delays, patients will benefit from fibrinolysis before or during transfer to a PCI hospital. Third, modern fibrinolytic strategies-immediate fibrinolysis followed by rescue or early PCI-may even offer the best results of all in a subset of patients. Patients of less than 75 years, managed within the first 2 hours and who cannot have immediate PCI, will fare better with a modern fibrinolytic strategy than with primary PCI. Guidelines advocate regional networks between hospitals with and without PCI capabilities, an efficient ambulance service and standardization of AMI management through shared protocols. These regional logistics of care are essential to take full advantage of fibrinolysis strategies. In order to check that these strategies are correctly applied, networks need ongoing registries, as well as benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives.
Related Concept Videos
Acute Coronary Syndrome I: Introduction
Clot Retraction and Fibrinolysis
Acute Coronary Syndrome IV: Interprofessional Care
Myocarditis III: Medical Management
Anticoagulant Drugs: Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins
Ischemic Stroke ll: Pathophysiology

