Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus In-hospital thrombolysis as Reperfusion Therapy in Early-Arriving Low-risk STEMI Patients.

Trials have shown superiority of primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI) over in-hospital thrombolysis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated within 6-12 hours from symptom onset. These studies also included high-risk patients not all of whom underwent a therapeutic intervention.To compare the outcome of early-arriving stable STEMI patients treated by thrombolysis with or without coronary angiography to the outcome of PPCI-treated STEMI patients.Based on six biannual Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Surveys comprising 5474 STEMI patients, we analyzed the outcome of 1464 hemodynamically stable STEMI patients treated within 3 hours of onset. Of these, 899 patients underwent PPCI, 383 received in-hospital thrombolysis followed by angiography (TFA), and 182 were treated by thrombolysis only.Median time intervals from symptom onset to admission were similar while door-to-reperfusion intervals were 63, 45 and 52.5 minutes for PPCI, TFA and thrombolysis only, respectively (P < 0.001). The 30-day composite endpoint of death, post-infarction angina and myocardial infarction occurred in 77 patients of the PPCI group (8.6%), 64 patients treated by TFA (16.7%), and 36 patients of the thrombolysis only group (19.8%, P < 0.001), with differences mostly due to post-infarction angina. One-year mortality rate was 27 (3%), 13 (3.4%) and 11 (6.1%) for PPCI, TFA and thrombolysis only, respectively (P = 0.12).PPCI was superior to thrombolysis in early-arriving stable STEMI patients with regard to 30-day composite endpoint driven by a decreased incidence of post-infarction angina. No 1 year survival benefit for PPCI over thrombolysis was observed in early-arriving stable STEMI patients.