Zhou Shuduo, Xie Siwei, You Binquan, Xiang Dingcheng, Fang Weiyi, Trisolini Michael G, Labresh Kenneth A, Smith Sidney C, Zheng Zhi-Jie, Jin Yinzi, Liu Feng, Huo Yong
Department of Biostatistics Peking University First Hospital Beijing China.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore MD USA.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2025 Jun 23:e041995. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.125.041995.
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the preferred reperfusion strategy compared with onsite fibrinolytic therapy (O-FT) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction when delivered promptly. However, the contemporaneous data to inform the comparative benefits of primary PCI versus O-FT, especially in developing countries, have been largely understudied.
We used data from the National Chest Pain Center Program (NCPCP), the largest nationwide registry in China, including patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary PCI or O-FT from January 2016 to December 2022. Patients were matched using propensity scores, and the PCI-related delay was defined as the difference between the observed door-to-wiring time and the door-to-needle time. Mortality outcomes were assessed at different delay intervals (<60 minutes, 60-90 minutes, >90 minutes). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on age, infarction location, and Killip classification.
In 19 334 matched patients, primary PCI demonstrated a significant mortality benefit over O-FT when PCI-related delays were <60 minutes (2.34% versus 6.01%). However, this advantage diminished when delays exceeded 90 minutes. The critical threshold at which PCI lost its mortality benefit was identified as 119.51 minutes (door-to-wiring time - door-to-needle time). Subgroup analyses showed that older patients, patients with anterior infarction, and those with a higher Killip class appeared to have lower equipoise thresholds.
Primary PCI offers a mortality benefit compared with O-FT in patients with timely treated ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, but treatment delays can mitigate this benefit. In settings with prolonged treatment delays, immediate fibrinolysis may be a more effective strategy. Treatment decisions should incorporate both patient characteristics and health care system constraints to optimize ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction outcomes.
对于ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者,与现场溶栓治疗(O-FT)相比,及时进行的直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)是首选的再灌注策略。然而,关于直接PCI与O-FT相比的相对益处的同期数据,尤其是在发展中国家,在很大程度上尚未得到充分研究。
我们使用了中国最大的全国性登记系统——国家胸痛中心项目(NCPCP)的数据,该数据涵盖了2016年1月至2022年12月期间接受直接PCI或O-FT治疗的ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者。使用倾向评分对患者进行匹配,PCI相关延迟定义为观察到的门到导丝时间与门到针时间之差。在不同的延迟间隔(<60分钟、60-90分钟、>90分钟)评估死亡率结局。根据年龄、梗死部位和Killip分级进行亚组分析。
在19334例匹配患者中,当PCI相关延迟<60分钟时,直接PCI显示出比O-FT显著的死亡率益处(2.34%对6.01%)。然而,当延迟超过90分钟时,这一优势减弱。确定PCI失去死亡率益处的临界阈值为119.51分钟(门到导丝时间-门到针时间)。亚组分析表明,老年患者、前壁梗死患者和Killip分级较高的患者似乎具有较低的平衡阈值。
对于及时治疗的ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者,直接PCI与O-FT相比具有死亡率益处,但治疗延迟会削弱这一益处。在治疗延迟较长的情况下,立即溶栓可能是一种更有效的策略。治疗决策应综合考虑患者特征和医疗保健系统的限制因素,以优化ST段抬高型心肌梗死的治疗结局。