Five-year outcomes following timely primary percutaneous intervention, late primary percutaneous intervention, or a pharmaco-invasive strategy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the FAST-MI programme

Abstract

Abstract Aims ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) guidelines recommend primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) as the default reperfusion strategy when feasible ≤120 min of diagnostic ECG, and a pharmaco-invasive strategy otherwise. There is, however, a lack of direct evidence to support the guidelines, and in real-world situations, pPCI is often performed beyond recommended timelines. To assess 5-year outcomes according to timing of pPCI (timely vs. late) compared with a pharmaco-invasive strategy (fibrinolysis with referral to PCI centre). Methods and results The French registry of Acute ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) programme consists of nationwide observational surveys consecutively recruiting patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction every 5 years. Among the 4250 STEMI patients in the 2005 and 2010 cohorts, those with reperfusion therapy and onset-to-first call time <12 h (n = 2942) were included. Outcomes at 5 years were compared according to type of reperfusion strategy and timing of pPCI, using Cox multivariable analyses and propensity score matching. Among those, 1288 (54%) patients had timely pPCI (≤120 min from ECG), 830 (28%) late pPCI (>120 min), and 824 (28%) intravenous fibrinolysis. Five-year survival was higher with a pharmaco-invasive strategy (89.8%) compared with late pPCI [79.5%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.51; 1.13–2.02] and similar to timely pPCI (88.2%, adjusted HR 1.02; 0.75–1.38). Concordant results were observed in propensity score-matched cohorts and for event-free survival. Conclusion A substantial proportion of patients have pPCI beyond recommended timelines. As foreseen by the guidelines, these patients have poorer 5-year outcomes, compared with a pharmaco-invasive strategy.