Outcomes after delayed primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs. pharmaco-invasive strategy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in Norway

Abstract

Abstract Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) provided it can be performed within 120 min from diagnosis. However, it is unclear whether pPCI or a pharmaco-invasive (P-I) strategy is the best choice in patients who cannot receive timely pPCI. The aim of the present study was to compare outcomes after delayed and late pPCI vs. a P-I strategy in STEMI patients who did not receive timely pPCI. Methods and results All patients with STEMI registered in the Norwegian Myocardial Infarction Registry (NORMI) between 2013 and 2019, with ≤12 h from symptom onset to first medical contact and available timelines were included in the study. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and follow-up was through 2019. A total of 21 121 (27% of 78 368) STEMI patients were registered in the NORMI. Among patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7238 (54%) patients underwent timely pPCI, 1537 (11%) delayed pPCI (121–180 min), 1012 (7%) late pPCI (>180 min), and 2338 (17%) patients were treated with a P-I strategy. After a median follow-up time of 2.5 years, mortality was higher in the delayed pPCI [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0–1.5] and in the late pPCI group (adjusted HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.7) compared to the P-I strategy group, but bleeding complications were more frequent after P-I strategy. Conclusions In STEMI patients who did not receive timely percutaneous coronary intervention, a P-I strategy seemed to be associated with better long-term survival compared to delayed/late pPCI.