Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial...

The benefit-risk ratio of a pharmacoinvasive strategy (PI) in patients ≥70 years of age with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains uncertain resulting in its limited use in this population. This study compared efficacy and safety of PI with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). Data from 2,841 patients (mean age: 78.1 ± 5.6 years, female: 36.1%) included in a prospective multicenter registry, and who underwent either PI (n = 269) or pPCI (n = 2,572), were analyzed. The primary end point was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, and definite stent thrombosis. Secondary end points included all-cause death, major bleeding, net adverse clinical events, and the development of in-hospital Killip class III or IV heart failure. Propensity-score matching and conditional logistic regression were used to adjust for confounders. Within the matched cohort, rates of MACE was not statistically different between the PI (n = 247) and pPCI (n = 958) groups, (11.3% vs 9.0%, respectively, odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.94; p = 0.31). Secondary end points were comparable between groups at the exception of a lower rate of development of Killip class III or IV heart failure after PI. The rate of intracranial hemorrhage was significantly higher in the PI group (2.3% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). In conclusion, the present study demonstrated no difference regarding in-hospital MACE following PI or pPCI in STEMI patients ≥70 years of age. An adequately-powered randomized trial is needed to precisely define the role of PI in this high-risk subgroup.