We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Five-year survival in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction according to modalities of reperfusion therapy: the French Registry on Acute ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) 2005 Cohort.
Circulation 2014 April 23
BACKGROUND: Although primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the preferred reperfusion method for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, it remains difficult to implement in many areas, and fibrinolytic therapy is still widely used.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed 5-year mortality in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction from the French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation or Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) 2005 according to use and type of reperfusion therapy. Of 1492 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with a first call ≤12 hours from onset, 447 (30%) received fibrinolysis (66% prehospital; 97% with subsequent angiography, 84% with subsequent PCI), 583 (39%) had pPCI, and 462 (31%) received no reperfusion. Crude 5-year survival was 88% for the fibrinolytic-based strategy, 83% for pPCI, and 59% for no reperfusion. Adjusted hazard ratios for 5-year death were 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.06) for fibrinolysis versus pPCI, 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.88) for prehospital fibrinolysis versus pPCI, and 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.91) for fibrinolysis versus pPCI beyond 90 minutes of call in patients having called ≤180 minutes from onset. In propensity score-matched populations, however, survival rates were not significantly different for fibrinolysis and pPCI, both in the whole population (88% lysis, 85% pPCI) and in the population seen early (87% fibrinolysis, 85% pPCI beyond 90 minutes from call).
CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, on a nationwide scale, a pharmaco-invasive strategy constitutes a valid alternative to pPCI, with 5-year survival at least equivalent to that of the reference reperfusion method.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00673036.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed 5-year mortality in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction from the French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation or Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI) 2005 according to use and type of reperfusion therapy. Of 1492 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with a first call ≤12 hours from onset, 447 (30%) received fibrinolysis (66% prehospital; 97% with subsequent angiography, 84% with subsequent PCI), 583 (39%) had pPCI, and 462 (31%) received no reperfusion. Crude 5-year survival was 88% for the fibrinolytic-based strategy, 83% for pPCI, and 59% for no reperfusion. Adjusted hazard ratios for 5-year death were 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.06) for fibrinolysis versus pPCI, 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.88) for prehospital fibrinolysis versus pPCI, and 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.91) for fibrinolysis versus pPCI beyond 90 minutes of call in patients having called ≤180 minutes from onset. In propensity score-matched populations, however, survival rates were not significantly different for fibrinolysis and pPCI, both in the whole population (88% lysis, 85% pPCI) and in the population seen early (87% fibrinolysis, 85% pPCI beyond 90 minutes from call).
CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, on a nationwide scale, a pharmaco-invasive strategy constitutes a valid alternative to pPCI, with 5-year survival at least equivalent to that of the reference reperfusion method.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00673036.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app