Background:

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The delays associated with PPCI reduce the benefits of this therapy. To minimize these delays, the pharmacoinvasive strategy (PS) was developed, consisting of applying thrombolytic therapy followed by coronary angioplasty 2 to 24 hours after.

Objective:

To compare the safety and efficiency of PPCI vs PS in STEMI.

Methods:

We included patients with STEMI who had emergency PCI. The primary endpoint was combined major adverse cardiac events (MACE), death, reinfarction, stroke, target vessel revascularization (TVR) during hospitalization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of MACE, and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium: BARC ≥ 3).

Results:

A total of 400 patients, 263 (65.8%) for PPCI group, 114 (28.5%) for PS group and 23 (5.75%) for diagnostic group. The PS group, 79 (69.3%) were then categorized as systematic angioplasty having had a successful thrombolysis, and 35 (30.7%) were rescue angioplasty because they had a failed thrombolysis. There were no differences in MACE: 13 (9.5%) patients in PS and 27 (10.3%) patients in the PPCI (p = 0.806), there were no differences in the individual components of MACE. The rate of major bleeding was the same, 5 (3.6%) and 4 (1.5%) respectively (p = 0.173). The multivariate analysis did not show a relationship between MACE and the reperfusion strategy.

Conclusions:

The pharmacoinvasive strategy when compared to PPCI has a similar rate of primary and secondary endpoints. There is no increase in major bleeding therefore, it is an important strategy that offers a reperfusion therapy for patients with STEMI in a non-PCI capable hospital.