June 25th, 2010
Start The Timer!
Richard A. Lange, MD, MBA
In a province-wide evaluation of STEMI care in Quebec, primary PCI was the preferred method of reperfusion therapy: 80% of patients who underwent reperfusion received primary PCI, whereas 20% were given fibrinolytic therapy.
Disappointingly, PCI was performed > 90 minutes after presentation in 68% of recipients; fibrinolysis was performed >30 minutes in 54%. Time to reperfusion had a stronger effect on outcomes than the method of reperfusion. Transfer from a non-PCI center to a hospital with PCI capability was strongly associated with delayed reperfusion (odds ratio, 4.6), which translated to a higher risk of death at 30 days and higher risk of the combined outcome of death of hospital readmssion for CHF or MI at 1 year.
These data suggest that timely fibrinolysis may be more effective than delayed primary PCI in some situations.
If you presented to a non-PCI hospital with an STEMI, would you prefer immediate fibrinolysis or transfer to a PCI-capable facility?
depends
Wouldn’t the answer depend on the time it would take to get to the PCI hospital and whether there is a system in place to whisk you to the cath lab. I am concerned that many patients who are transferred have d2b times (door of first hospital to balloon at second hospital) of 3+ hours. For those individuals, assuming no contraindication to lytics, wouldn’t they be better off with lytics – at least until the system improved. And I like the NC RACE example showing how you can create a system within a state that enables rapid transfers and quick PCIs (kudos to the NC hospitals and Jollis and Granger for their leadership).
is there an option to combine the two?
Is there a protocol to initiate lytic therapy at the first hospital and then abort the lytic treatment upon arrival at the cath lab?