A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND For the treatment of myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation, primary angioplasty is considered superior to fibrinolysis for patients who are admitted to hospitals with angioplasty facilities. Whether this benefit is maintained for patients who require transportation from a community hospital to a center where invasive treatment is available is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 1572 patients with acute myocardial infarction to treatment with angioplasty or accelerated treatment with intravenous alteplase; 1129 patients were enrolled at 24 referral hospitals and 443 patients at 5 invasive-treatment centers. The primary study end point was a composite of death, clinical evidence of reinfarction, or disabling stroke at 30 days. RESULTS Among patients who underwent randomization at referral hospitals, the primary end point was reached in 8.5 percent of the patients in the angioplasty group, as compared with 14.2 percent of those in the fibrinolysis group (P=0.002). The results were similar among patients who were enrolled at invasive-treatment centers: 6.7 percent of the patients in the angioplasty group reached the primary end point, as compared with 12.3 percent in the fibrinolysis group (P=0.05). Among all patients, the better outcome after angioplasty was driven primarily by a reduction in the rate of reinfarction (1.6 percent in the angioplasty group vs. 6.3 percent in the fibrinolysis group, P<0.001); no significant differences were observed in the rate of death (6.6 percent vs. 7.8 percent, P=0.35) or the rate of stroke (1.1 percent vs. 2.0 percent, P=0.15). Ninety-six percent of patients were transferred from referral hospitals to an invasive-treatment center within two hours. CONCLUSIONS A strategy for reperfusion involving the transfer of patients to an invasive-treatment center for primary angioplasty is superior to on-site fibrinolysis, provided that the transfer takes two hours or less.

[1]  J. Reiber,et al.  A comparison of immediate coronary angioplasty with intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  H. Arendrup,et al.  Danish multicenter randomized study of invasive versus conservative treatment in patients with inducible ischemia after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction (DANAMI). DANish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction. , 1997, Circulation.

[3]  M. Simoons,et al.  A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  P. Touboul,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study , 2002, The Lancet.

[5]  Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. , 2002, JAMA.

[6]  J O'Keefe,et al.  A Comparison of Immediate Angioplasty with Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction , 1993 .

[7]  R. Zahn,et al.  The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  J. Rumsfeld,et al.  Relation between hospital primary angioplasty volume and mortality for patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty vs thrombolytic therapy. , 2000, JAMA.

[9]  K. Bailey,et al.  Immediate angioplasty compared with the administration of a thrombolytic agent followed by conservative treatment for myocardial infarction. The Mayo Coronary Care Unit and Catheterization Laboratory Groups. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  William W O'Neill,et al.  A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study. , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  H. S. Mueller,et al.  The Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) trial. Phase I findings. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  M. Morice,et al.  Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition with coronary stenting for acute myocardial infarction. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  J. Boura,et al.  Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction : a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials , 2022 .

[14]  W. Ganz,et al.  The thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) trial. , 1985, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  J. J. Griffin,et al.  Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  T. Nielsen,et al.  Danish multicenter randomized study on fibrinolytic therapy versus acute coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the DANish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction-2 (DANAMI-2). , 2003, American heart journal.

[17]  M. Aschermann,et al.  Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Final results of the randomized national multicentre trial--PRAGUE-2. , 2003, European heart journal.

[18]  W. Rogers,et al.  The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  K. Fox,et al.  Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[20]  E. Antman,et al.  Is recurrent myocardial infarction following thrombolytic administration associated with long-term mortality? , 2002 .