Published Online
on June 30, 2008

A more recent version of this article appeared on July 15, 2008

This Article Full Text (PDF) CME: Take the course for this article: Circulation: July 15, 2008, Volume 118, Number 3 All Versions of this Article: 118/3/268    most recent CIRCULATIONAHA.107.762765v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Danchin, N. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Danchin, N. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Angioplasty Heart Attack Related Collections Fibrinolysis Catheter-based coronary interventions: stents Acute coronary syndromes Acute myocardial infarction Related Article

Submitted on December 27, 2007
Accepted on May 1, 2008

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)

Nicolas Danchin MD^*, Pierre Coste MD, Jean Ferrières MD, Philippe-Gabriel Steg MD, Yves Cottin MD, Didier Blanchard MD, Loïc Belle MD, Bernard Ritz MD, Gilbert Kirkorian MD, Michael Angioi MD, Philippe Sans MD, Bernard Charbonnier MD, Hélène Eltchaninoff MD, Pascal Guéret MD, Khalife Khalife MD, Philippe Asseman MD, Jacques Puel MD, Patrick Goldstein MD, Jean-Pierre Cambou MD, Tabassome Simon MD, for the FAST-MI Investigators

From Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou (N.D.), Assistance publique des hôpitaux de Paris, and Université Paris 5, Paris, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Haut Levesque (P.C.), Bordeaux-Pessac, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rangueil (J.F., J.P.), Toulouse, France; INSERM U-698 et Centre Hospitalier Bichat-Claude Bernard (P.-G.S.), Paris, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Dijon (Y.C.), Dijon, France; Clinique St Gatien (D.B.), Tours, France; Centre Hospitalier d'Annecy (L.B.), Annecy, France; Centre Hospitalier St Joseph et St Luc (B.R.), Lyon, France; Hôpital Cardio-pneumologique (G.K.), Lyon, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Nancy-Brabois (M.A.), Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France; Hôpital Font Pré (P.S.), Toulon, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Tours (B.C.), Tours, France; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Rouen (H.E.), Rouen, France; Hôpital Henri Mondor (P. Guéret), Créteil, France; Hôpital Bon Secours (K.K.), Metz, France; Hôpital cardiologique (P.A.), Lille, France; Service d'Aide Médicale Urgente (P. Goldstein), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Lille, France; Société Française de Cardiologie (J.-P.C.), Paris, France; and Hôpital St Antoine (T.S.), Assistance publique des hôpitaux de Paris, Unité de Recherche Clinique de L'Est Parisien, Université Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6, Paris, France.

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: nicolas.danchin{at}egp.aphp.fr.

Background—Intravenous thrombolysis remains a widely used treatment for ST-elevation myocardial infarction; however, it carries a higher risk of reinfarction than primary PCI (PPCI). There are few data comparing PPCI with thrombolysis followed by routine angiography and PCI. The purpose of the present study was to assess contemporary outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, with specific emphasis on comparing a pharmacoinvasive strategy (thrombolysis followed by routine angiography) with PPCI.

Methods and Results—This nationwide registry in France included 223 centers and 1714 patients over a 1-month period at the end of 2005, with 1-year follow-up. Sixty percent of the patients underwent reperfusion therapy, 33% with PPCI and 29% with intravenous thrombolysis (18% prehospital). At baseline, the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score was similar in thrombolysis and PPCI patients. Time to initiation of reperfusion therapy was significantly shorter in thrombolysis than in PPCI (median 130 versus 300 minutes). After thrombolysis, 96% of patients had coronary angiography, and 84% had subsequent PCI (58% within 24 hours). In-hospital mortality was 4.3% for thrombolysis and 5.0% for PPCI. In patients with thrombolysis, 30-day mortality was 9.2% when PCI was not used and 3.9% when PCI was subsequently performed (4.0% if PCI was performed in the same hospital and 3.3% if performed after transfer to another facility). One-year survival was 94% for thrombolysis and 92% for PPCI (P=0.31). After propensity score matching, 1-year survival was 94% and 93%, respectively.

Conclusions—When used early after the onset of symptoms, a pharmacoinvasive strategy that combines thrombolysis with a liberal use of PCI yields early and 1-year survival rates that are comparable to those of PPCI.

Key words: myocardial infarction • thrombolysis • angioplasty

Related Article:

Clinical Summaries
Circulation 2008 118: 211-212. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. D. White Systems of Care: Need for Hub-and-Spoke Systems for Both Primary and Systematic Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Fibrinolysis Circulation, July 15, 2008; 118(3): 219 - 222. [Full Text] [PDF]