Comparison of Reperfusion Strategies for ST‐Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Multivariate Network Meta‐analysis. Issue 12 (16th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fazel, Reza; Joseph, Timothy I.; Sankardas, Mullasari A.; Pinto, Duane S.; Yeh, Robert W.; Kumbhani, Dharam J.; Nallamothu, Brahmajee K.
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Heart Association. Volume 9:Issue 12(2020)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2020-06-16
• Subjects: facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention -- fibrinolytic therapy -- pharmacoinvasive approach -- primary percutaneous coronary intervention -- ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Cerebrovascular disease -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.1
• DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.015186
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2047-9980

Abstract

Abstract : Background: We systematically reviewed trials comparing different reperfusion strategies for ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction and used multivariate network meta‐analysis to compare outcomes across these strategies. Methods and Results: We identified 31 contemporary trials in which patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to ≥2 of the following strategies: fibrinolytic therapy (n=4212), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=6139), or fibrinolysis followed by routine early PCI (n=5006). We categorized the last approach as "facilitated PCI" when the median time interval between fibrinolysis to PCI was <2 hours (n=2259) and as a "pharmacoinvasive approach" when this interval was ≥2 hours (n=2747). We evaluated outcomes of death, nonfatal reinfarction, stroke, and major bleeding using a multivariate network meta‐analysis and a Bayesian analysis. Among the strategies evaluated, primary PCI was associated with the lowest risk of mortality, nonfatal reinfarction, and stroke. For mortality, primary PCI had an odds ratio of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61–0.89) when compared with fibrinolytic therapy. Of the remaining strategies, the pharmacoinvasive approach was the next most favorable with an odds ratio for death of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.59–1.08) compared with fibrinolytic therapy. The Bayesian model indicated that when the 2 strategies examining routine early invasive therapy following fibrinolysis were directly compared, the probability of adverse outcomes was lower for the pharmacoinvasive approach relative to facilitated PCI. Conclusions: A pharmacoinvasive approach is safer and more effective than facilitated PCI and fibrinolytic therapy alone. This has significant implications for ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction care in settings where timely access to primary PCI, the preferred treatment for ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction, is not available.