Pharmacoinvasive therapy, PPCI confer comparable survival benefits to transfer STEMI patients
Pharmacoinvasive therapy (PIT) and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) are comparable in terms of all-cause mortality in transfer patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), a recent meta-analysis has shown.
Seventeen studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis, of which six were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 11 were cohort studies. Together, the studies corresponded to 13.037 patients who received either PPCI (n=7,398) or PIT (n=5,693). No evidence of small study effects or publication bias was reported.
Pooled analysis of the six RCTs showed PIT and PPCI were statistically comparable in terms of all-cause, short-term (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95 percent CI, 0.73–1.34; p=0.93) and long-term (OR, 0.83; 0.59–1.17; p=0.287) mortality. On the other hand, PPCI significantly increased the risk of all-cause, short-term mortality, according to the pooled analysis of observational studies (OR, 1.39; 1.04–1.87; p=0.028).
However, combining both RCTs and observational studies demonstrated that both approaches resulted in similar likelihood of all-cause short-term (OR, 1.20; 0.97–1.49; p=0.099) and long-term (OR, 1.17; 0.84–1.62; p=0.361) mortality.
The same was true for total stroke (OR, 0.76; 0.51–1.49; p=0.193), haemorrhagic stroke (OR, 0.56; 0.20–1.62; p=0.288), ischaemic stroke (OR, 0.65; 0.28–1.49; p=0.310) and major bleeding (OR, 0.73; 0.48–1.11; p=0.138).
In contrast, PPCI significantly increased the risk of cardiogenic shock (OR, 1.48; 1.13–1.94; p=0.005) and decreased the chances of reinfarction (OR, 0.69; 0.49–0.97; p=0.033) relative to PIT.
The databases of Embase, Scopus, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were accessed for the present meta-analysis. Studies on facilitated PCI and with ischaemia-guided reperfusion were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate study quality.