Pharmacoinvasive Strategy Versus Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent clinical trial data support a pharmacoinvasive strategy as an alternative to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We evaluated whether this is true in a real-world prehospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction network using ECG assessment of reperfusion coupled with clinical outcomes within 1 year. Methods: Of the 5583 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients in the Alberta Vital Heart Response Program (Cohort 1 [2006–2011]: n=3593; Cohort 2 [2013–2016]: n=1990), we studied 3287 patients who received a pharmacoinvasive strategy with tenecteplase (April 2013: half-dose tenecteplase was employed in prehospital patients ≥75 years) or pPCI. ECGs were analyzed within a core laboratory; sum ST-segment deviation resolution ≥50% was defined as successful reperfusion. The primary composite was all-cause death, congestive heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and recurrent myocardial infarction within 1 year. Results: The pharmacoinvasive approach was administered in 1805 patients (54.9%), (493 [27.3%] underwent rescue/urgent percutaneous coronary intervention and 1312 [72.7%] had scheduled angiography); pPCI was performed in 1482 patients (45.1%). There was greater ST-segment resolution post-catheterization/percutaneous coronary intervention with a pharmacoinvasive strategy versus pPCI (75.8% versus 64.3%, IP-weighted odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.33–1.90; P <0.001). The primary composite was significantly lower with a pharmacoinvasive approach (16.3% versus 23.1%, IP-weighted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72–0.99; P =0.033). Major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage were similar between a pharmacoinvasive strategy and pPCI (7.6% versus 7.5%, P =0.867; 0.6% versus 0.6%; P =0.841, respectively). In the 82 patients ≥75 years with a prehospital pharmacoinvasive strategy, similar ST-segment resolution and rescue rates were observed with full-dose versus half-dose tenecteplase (75.8% versus 88.9%, P =0.259; 31.0% versus 29.2%, P =0.867) with no difference in the primary composite (31.0% versus 25.0%, P =0.585). Conclusions: In this large Canadian ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction registry, a pharmacoinvasive strategy was associated with improved ST-segment resolution and enhanced outcomes within 1 year compared with pPCI. Our findings support the application of a selective pharmacoinvasive reperfusion strategy when delay to pPCI exists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".