Long-Term Outcomes of Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Elevation...

Although primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the treatment of choice in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), challenges may arise in accessing this intervention for certain geodemographic groups. Pharmacoinvasive strategy (PIs) has demonstrated comparable outcomes when delays in pPCI are anticipated, but real-world data on long-term outcomes are limited. The aim of the present study was to compare long-term outcomes among real-world patients with STEMI who underwent either PIs or pPCI. This was a prospective registry including patients with STEMI who received reperfusion during the first 12 hours from symptom onset. The primary objective was cardiovascular mortality at 12 months according to the reperfusion strategy (pPCI vs PIs) and major cardiovascular events (cardiogenic shock, recurrent myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure), and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding events were also evaluated. A total of 799 patients with STEMI were included; 49.1% underwent pPCI and 50.9% received PIs. Patients in the PIs group presented with more heart failure on admission (Killip-Kimbal >I 48.1 vs 39.7, p = 0.02) and had a lower proportion of pre-existing heart failure (0.2% vs 1.8%, p = 0.02) and atrial fibrillation (0.25% vs 1.2%, p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference was observed in cardiovascular mortality at the 12-month follow-up (hazard ratio for PIs 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 1.30, log-rank p = 0.30) according to the reperfusion strategy used. The composite of major cardiovascular events (hazard ratio for PIs 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.29, p = 0.92) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding rates were also comparable. A low socioeconomic status, Killip-Kimball >2, age >60 years, and admission creatinine >2.0 mg/100 ml were predictors of the composite end point after multivariate analysis. In conclusion, this prospective real-world registry provides additional support that long-term major cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding are not different between patients who underwent PIs versus primary PCI.