Primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction

This study investigates the hypothesis if primary angioplasty is superior to intravenous thrombolysis in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Small prospective randomized studies did not demonstrate a significant benefit regarding total mortality. A total of 14,980 patients with AMI were registered by ''The 60-Minutes Myocardial Infarction Project,'' a prospective multicenter observational study: 210 of these patients were treated with primary angioplasty. A matched pair analysis comparing 1 primary angioplasty patient with 3 intravenous thrombolysis patients could be performed in 156 primary angioplasty patients. Criteria for matching were age, sex, location of AMI, systolic blood pressure, previous AMI, and prehospital delay. Patients with a bundle branch block or requiring resuscitation were excluded from analysis. Because of matching, both groups showed similar baseline characteristics. Patients with primary angioplasty had more relative contraindications for thrombolysis (ulcers: 10.3% vs 2.3%, recent intramuscular injections: 6.4% vs 1.6%, recent surgical interventions: 5.1% vs 1.1%, central punctures: 9% vs 3.9%). There was a tendency toward less combined adverse events in the primary angioplasty group (3.2% vs 5.7%, odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21 to 1.44). In-hospital mortality rates in the primary angioplasty group and thrombolysis group were 4.3% and 10.3%, respectively (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.92). The difference in mortality could already be demonstrated within the first 48 hours with 1.9% versus 5.3% deaths (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.11 to 1.14). Thus this study indicates a superiority of primary angioplasty in comparison to intravenous thrombolysis in AMI even in a clinical routine setting, with a reduction of hospital mortality of about 60%. (C) 1997 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.