EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials



Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials



Lancet 367(9510): 579-588



Background Facilitated percutaneons coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is defined as the use of pharmacological substances before a planned immediate intervention, to improve coronary patency. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (published and unpublished) to compare facilitated and primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods We identified 17 trials of patients with STEMI assigned to facilitated (n=2237) or primary (n=2267) percutaneous coronary intervention. We identified short-term outcomes (up to 42 days) of death, stroke, non-fatal reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularisation, and major bleeding. Grade 3 flow rates for prethrombolysis and post-thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) were also analysed.Findings The facilitated approach resulted in a greater than two-fold increase in the number of patients with initial TIMI grade 3 flow, compared with the primary approach (832 patients [37%] vs 342 [15%], odds ratio 3.18, 95% CI 2.22-4.55); however, final rates did not differ (1706 [89%] vs 1803 [88%]; 1.19, 0.86-1.64). Significantly more patients assigned to the facilitated approach than those assigned to the primary approach died (106 [5%] vs 78 [3%]; 1.38, 1.01-1.87), had higher non-fatal reinfarction rates (74 [3%] vs 41 [2%]; 1.71, 1.16-2.51), and had higher urgent target vessel revascularisation rates (66 [4%] vs 21 [1%]; 2.39, 1.23-4.66); the increased rates of adverse events seen with the facilitated approach were mainly seen in thrombolytic-therapy-based regimens. Facilitated intervention was associated with higher rates of major bleeding than primary intervention (159 [7%] vs 108 [5%]; 1.51, 1.10-2.08). Haemorrhagic stroke and total stroke rates were higher in thrombolytic-therapy-containing facilitated regimens than in primary intervention (haemorrhagic stroke 15 [0.7%] vs two [0.1%], p=0.0014; total stroke 24 [1.1%] vs six [0.3%], p=0.0008).Interpretation Facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention offers no benefit over primary percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI treatment and should not be used outside the context of randomised controlled trials. Furthermore, facilitated interventions with thrombolytic-based regimens should be avoided.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 011885209

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 16488801

DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68148-8



Related references

Primary percutaneous coronary angioplasty with and without eptifibatide in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a safety and efficacy study of integrilin-facilitated versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ASSIST). Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions 2(4): 330-338, 2010

Primary versus tenecteplase-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (ASSENT-4 PCI): randomised trial. Yearbook of Cardiology 2007: 210-212, 2007

Primary versus tenecteplase-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (ASSENT-4 PCI): randomised trial. Lancet 367(9510): 569-578, 2006

Randomized Comparison of Pre-HospitalInitiated Facilitated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Acute Myocardial Infarction Very Early After Symptom Onset: The LIPSIA-STEMI Trial (Leipzig Immediate Prehospital Facilitated Angioplasty in ST-Segment Myocardial Infarction). Yearbook of Cardiology 2012: 201-203, 2012

Randomized comparison of pre-hospital-initiated facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction very early after symptom onset: the LIPSIA-STEMI trial (Leipzig immediate prehospital facilitated angioplasty in ST-segment myocardial infarction). Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 4(6): 605-614, 2011

Reperfusion strategies. Comparison of facilitated versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine 7(3): 168-172, 2006

Comparison of outcomes and safety of "facilitated" versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. American Journal of Cardiology 103(3): 316-321, 2009

A comparison of rescue and primary percutaneous coronary interventions for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. Indian Heart Journal 69 Suppl 1: S57-S62, 2017

Intracoronary versus intravenous bolus abciximab application in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: 6-month effects on infarct size and left ventricular function. The randomised Leipzig Immediate PercutaneouS Coronary Intervention Abciximab i.v. versus i.c. in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Trial (LIPSIAbciximab-STEMI). Clinical Research in Cardiology 100(5): 425-432, 2011

Comparison of thrombolysis followed by broad use of percutaneous coronary intervention with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation acute myocardial infarction: data from the french registry on acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (FAST-MI). Circulation 118(3): 268-276, 2008

Preventive Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction - The Primacy of Randomised Trials. Interventional Cardiology 10(1): 32-34, 2018

Randomized comparison of primary percutaneous coronary intervention with combined proximal embolic protection and thrombus aspiration versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the PREPARE (PRoximal Embolic Protection in Acute myocardial infarction and Resolution of ST-Elevation) study. Jacc. Cardiovascular Interventions 2(10): 934-943, 2010

Effect of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised trials and an adjusted indirect comparison. Eurointervention 5(7): 853-860, 2010

Prognostic implications of ST-segment elevation resolution in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction treated with primary or facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention. American Journal of Cardiology 105(5): 605-610, 2010

Prehospital fibrinolysis versus primary percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Critical Care 20(1): 359-359, 2016