Comparison of very early treatment with either fibrinolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention facilitated with abciximab with respect to ST recovery and infarct-related artery epicardial flow in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infa

Background Results from a number of studies indicate that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to fibrinolysis for treatment of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Modern adjunctive antithrombotic treatment with systematic use of low-molecular-weight heparins, fibrin-specific thrombolysis, and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors may improve the outcome compared with what was achieved in previous studies. Methods Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to receive enoxaparin followed by reteplase (group A; n = 104) or enoxaparin followed by abciximab and transfer to invasive center for optional PCI (group B; n = 101). Primary end points were ST-segment resolution 120 minutes and TIMI flow at coronary angiography 5 to 7 days after randomization. Results Forty-two percent of the patients started therapy in the prehospital phase. Time from symptom to treatment was 114 minutes in group A and 202 minutes in group B. Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. Sixty-four percent in group A and 68% in group B had ST resolution of >50% at 120 minutes (not significant). At control angiography, 54% in the fibrinolytic group and 71% in the invasive group had TIMI 3 flow (P = .04). At 30 days, the composite of death, stroke, or reinfarction occurred in 8% in the fibrinolytic group compared with 3% in the invasive group (not significant). Conclusions Despite much shorter time delay to start of fibrinolysis than PCI, this did not result in signs of superior myocardial reperfusion. Epicardial flow in the infarct-related artery was better after invasive therapy, and there was a trend toward better clinical outcome after this treatment compared with after fibrinolysis.