Current Cardiology Reports

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 415–423

Reperfusion options in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with expected delays



Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the optimal reperfusion strategy for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients when performed in a timely manner by experienced providers. Unfortunately, only 25% of US hospitals have percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) capability. Transfer for PPCI has also been shown to improve outcomes if transfer times are short and PCI can be performed within 90 minutes. However, many STEMI patients cannot be transferred in a timely fashion because of long distances, adverse weather, or process-of-care delays. Recent data support strategies that combine fibrinolysis with transfer for PCI under these circumstances. The critical issue that is still debated is the timing of PCI (immediate vs delayed vs rescue). The significance of time to reperfusion to mortality is important but less critical for PCI than for fibrinolysis, but time still matters. To optimize time to reperfusion for STEMI patients, all hospitals need to have predetermined protocols in place based on hospital characteristics and proximity to a catheterization laboratory.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al.: 2007 Focused Update of the ACC/AHA 2004 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration With the Canadian Cardiovascular Society endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians: 2007 Writing Group to Review New Evidence and Update the ACC/AHA 2004 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, Writing on Behalf of the 2004 Writing Committee. Circulation 2008, 117:296–329.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wennberg DE, Lucas FL, Siewers AE, et al.: Outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions performed at centers without and with onsite coronary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA 2004, 292:1961–1968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nallamothu BK, Bates ER, Wang Y, et al.: Driving times and distances to hospitals with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: implications for prehospital triage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 2006, 113:1189–1195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Terkelsen CJ, Lassen JF, Norgaard BL, et al.: Reduction of treatment delay in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: impact of pre-hospital diagnosis and direct referral to primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur Heart J 2005, 26:770–777.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carstensen S, Nelson GCI, Hansen PS, et al.: Field triage to primary angioplasty combined with emergency department bypass reduces treatment delays and is associated with improved outcome. Eur Heart J 2007, 28:2313–2319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le May MR, So DY, Dionne R, et al.: A citywide protocol for primary PCI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:231–240.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalby M, Bouzamondo A, Lechat P, Montalescot G: Transfer for primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Circulation 2003, 108:1809–1814.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nallamothu BK, Bates ER, Herrin J, et al.: Times to treatment in transfer patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI)-3/4 analysis. Circulation 2005, 111:761–767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Luca G, Suryapranata H, Ottervanger JP, Antman EM: Time delay to treatment and mortality in primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: every minute of delay counts. Circulation 2004, 109:1223–1225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reimer KA, Lowe JE, Rasmussen MM, Jennings RB: The wavefront phenomenon of ischemic cell death. 1. Myocardial infarct size vs duration of coronary occlusion in dogs. Circulation 1977, 56:786–794.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    O’Neill WW, Grines CL, Dixon SR, et al.: Does a 90-minute door-to-balloon time matter? Observations from four current reperfusion trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 45:225A.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boersma E, Maas AC, Deckers JW, Simoons ML: Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet 1996, 348:771–775.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newby LK, Rutsch WR, Califf RM, et al.: Time from symptom onset to treatment and outcomes after thrombolytic therapy. GUSTO-1 Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 27:1646–1655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berger PB, Ellis SG, Holmes DR Jr, et al.: Relationship between delay in performing direct coronary angioplasty and early clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the global use of strategies to open occluded arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO-IIb) trial. Circulation 1999, 100:14–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cannon CP, Gibson CM, Lambrew CT, et al.: Relationship of symptom-onset-to-balloon time and door-to-balloon time with mortality in patients undergoing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2000, 283:2941–2947.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Migliorini A, et al.: Relation of time to treatment and mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 2002, 89:1248–1252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Luca G, Suryapranata H, Zijlstra F, et al.: Symptom-onset-to-balloon time and mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated by primary angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 42:991–997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brodie BR, Cox DA, Stuckey TD, et al.: How important is time to treatment with primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction? Results from the CADILLAC trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 41:368A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taher T, Fu Y, Wagner GS, et al.: Aborted myocardial infarction in patients with ST-segment elevation: insights from the Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic Regimen-3 Trial Electrocardiographic Substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 44:38–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gersh BJ, Stone GW, White HD, Holmes DR Jr: Pharmacological facilitation of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: is the slope of the curve the shape of the future? JAMA 2005, 293:979–986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schomig A, Mehilli J, Antoniucci D, et al.: Mechanical reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting more than 12 hours from symptom onset: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005, 293:2865–2872.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McNamara RL, Wang Y, Herrin J, et al.: Effect of door-to-balloon time on mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:2180–2186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brodie BR, Hansen C, Stuckey TD, et al.: Door-to-balloon time with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction impacts late cardiac mortality in high-risk patients and patients presenting early after the onset of symptoms. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:289–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Widimsky P, Budesinsky T, Vorac D, et al.: Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Final results of the randomized national multicentre trial—PRAGUE-2. Eur Heart J 2003, 24:94–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Vesterlund T, et al.: Danish multicenter randomized study on fibrinolytic therapy versus acute coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the DANish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction-2 (DANAMI-2). Am Heart J 2003, 146:234–241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gershlick AH, Stephens-Lloyd A, Hughes S, et al.: Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:2758–2768.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sutton AG, Campbell PG, Graham R, et al.: A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Middlesbrough Early Revascularization to Limit INfarction (MERLIN) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 44:287–296.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patel TN, Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Ellis SG: A meta-analysis of randomized trials of rescue percutaneous coronary intervention after failed fibrinolysis. Am J Cardiol 2006, 97:1685–1690.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Topol EJ, Califf RM, George BS, et al.: A randomized trial of immediate versus delayed elective angioplasty after intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1987, 317:581–588.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Comparison of invasive and conservative strategies after treatment with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. Results of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) phase II trial. The TIMI Study Group [no authors listed]. N Engl J Med 1989, 320:618–627.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Simoons ML, Arnold AE, Betriu A, et al.: Thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction: no additional benefit from immediate percutaneous coronary angioplasty. Lancet 1988, 1:197–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ross AM, Coyne KS, Reiner JS, et al.: A randomized trial comparing primary angioplasty with a strategy of short-acting thrombolysis and immediate planned rescue angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: the PACT trial. PACT investigators. Plasminogen-activator Angioplasty Compatibility Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999, 34:1954–1962.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Schlotterbeck K, et al.: Early administration of reteplase plus abciximab vs abciximab alone in patients with acute myocardial infarction referred for percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004, 291:947–954.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Primary versus tenecteplase-facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (ASSENT-4 PCI): randomised trial [no authors listed]. Lancet 2006, 367:569–578.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL: Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials. Lancet 2006, 367:579–588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ellis SG, Tendera M, de Belder MA, et al.: Facilitated PCI in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:2205–2217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Larson DM, Menssen KM, Newell MC, et al.: Long distance transfer for direct percutaneous coronary intervention: a facilitated approach. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:174A.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dudek D, Dzieweirz A, Sludak Z, et al.: Percutaneous coronary interventions after 150 minutes transfer delay in patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2005, 112:II–621.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Denktas AE, Athar H, Henry TD, et al.: Superiority of reduced dose fibrinolytic acceleration of STEMI treatment coupled with urgent percutaneous intervention compared to primary PCI: results of the AMICO Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol Cardiovasc Interv 2008 (in press).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scheller B, Hennen B, Hammer B, et al.: Beneficial effects of immediate stenting after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 42:634–641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fernandez-Aviles F, Alonso JJ, Castro-Beiras A, et al.: Routine invasive strategy within 24 hours of thrombolysis versus ischaemia-guided conservative approach for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (GRACIA-1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 364:1045–1053.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fernandez-Aviles F, Alonso JJ, Pena G, et al.: Primary angioplasty vs. early routine post-fibrinolysis angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation: the GRACIA-2 non-inferiority, randomized, controlled trial. Eur Heart J 2007, 28:949–960.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Le May MR, Wells GA, Labinaz M, et al.: Combined angioplasty and pharmacological intervention versus thrombolysis alone in acute myocardial infarction (CAPITAL AMI study). J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46:417–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Armstrong PW, WEST Steering Committee: A comparison of pharmacologic therapy with/without timely coronary intervention vs. primary percutaneous intervention early after ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the WEST (Which Early ST-elevation myocardial infarction Therapy) study. Eur Heart J 2006, 27:1530–1538.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Di Mario C, Dudek D, Piscione F, et al.: Immediate angioplasty versus standard therapy with rescue angioplasty after thrombolysis in the Combined Abciximab REteplase Stent Study in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CARESS-in-AMI): an open, prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet 2008, 371:559–568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cantor WJ, Fitchett D, Borgundvaag B, et al.: Trial of Routine ANgioplasty and Stenting After Fibrinolyis to Enhance Reperfusion in Acute Myocardial Infarction (TRANSFER-AMI). Presented at the American College of Cardiology 2008 Annual Scientific Sessions. Chicago, IL; March 29–April 1, 2008.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nallamothu BK, Bates ER: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: is timing (almost) everything? Am J Cardiol 2003, 92:824–826.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pinto DS, Kirtane AJ, Nallamothu BK, et al.: Hospital delays in reperfusion for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: implications when selecting a reperfusion strategy. Circulation 2006, 114:2019–2025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Boersma E: Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J 2006, 27:779–788.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stenestrand U, Lindback J, Wallentin L; RISKS-HIA Registry: Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006, 296:1749–1756.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Henry TD, Unger BT, Sharkey SW, et al.: Design of a standardized system for transfer of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction for percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J 2005, 150:373–384.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Henry TD, Sharkey SW, Burke MN, et al.: A regional system to provide timely access to percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 2007, 116:721–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Medicine Group LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation at Abbott Northwestern HospitalMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations