Risk Reduction for Cardiac Events After Primary Coronary Intervention Compared With Thrombolysis for Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Five-Year Results of the Swedish Early Decision Reperfusion Strategy [SWEDES] Trial)

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction compares favorably to thrombolysis. In previous studies the benefit has been restricted to the early postinfarction period with no additional risk decrease beyond this period. Long-term outcome after use of third-generation thrombolytics and modern adjunctive pharmaceutics in the 2 treatment arms has not been investigated. This study was conducted to compare 5-year outcome after updated regimens of PPCI or thrombolysis. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to enoxaparin and abciximab followed by PPCI (n = 101) or enoxaparin followed by reteplase (n = 104), with prehospital initiation of therapy in 42% of patients. Data on survival and major cardiac events were obtained from Swedish national registries after 5.3 years. PPCI resulted in a better outcome with respect to the composite of death or recurrent myocardial infarction (hazard ratio 0.54, confidence interval 0.31 to 0.95) compared to thrombolysis. This was attributed to a significant decrease in cardiac deaths (hazard ratio 0.16, confidence interval 0.04 to 0.74). The difference evolved continuously over the 5-year follow-up. After adjustment for covariates, a significant benefit remained with respect to cardiac death or recurrent infarction but not for the composite of total survival or recurrent myocardial infarction (p = 0.07). The observed differences were not seen in patients in whom therapy was initiated in the prehospital phase. In conclusion, PPCI in combination with enoxaparin and abciximab compares favorably to thrombolysis in combination with enoxaparin with a risk decrease that stretches beyond the early postinfarction period. Prehospital thrombolysis may, however, match PPCI in long-term outcome. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2010;106:1685-1691)