Background

: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In Argentina, a country with a large area and suboptimal reperfusion times, the pharmacoinvasive (PI) strategy might be considered.

Methods

: ARGEN-IAM-ST is a national prospective, multicenter, and observational registry that includes STEMI patients with less than 36 hours of progression. The PI strategy usage and its associated variables were defined.

Results

: In this registry, 4788 patients were analyzed, of which 88.56% underwent PPCI, 8.46% received thrombolytics with positive reperfusion (TL+), and only 2.98% received PI strategy.

Median and interquartile range (IQR) of total ischemia time were lower in patients receiving TL+ (165 min, IQR 100-269) and PI (191 min, IQR 100-330) than in patients undergoing PPCI (280 min, IQR 179-520), p <0.001.

No differences in intra-hospital mortality were observed: 4.9% in the PI strategy group, 5.2% in the TL+ group and 7.8% in the PPCI group (p = 0.081). No differences in major bleeding events were observed.

It was observed that 57% of the TL+ patients met the criteria for high cardiovascular risk, but they did not receive PI strategy, as recommended.

Conclusions

: Only 3 out of 100 reperfused STEMI patients received PI strategy. Its administration is not systematically associated to high cardiovascular risk.

Despite the under-usage, it remains an option to be considered due to its total ischemia time lower than in the PPCI, with no increase in clinically significant bleedings.