The Strategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction trial and the French Registry of Acute ST-elevation or Non-ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction 2015 suggested that pharmacoinvasive strategy compares favorably with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We sought to assess the clinical impact of pharmacoinvasive strategy compared with PPCI in real-world patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction.Methods and Results—
We used the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry to identify ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving either pharmacoinvasive strategy defined as fibrinolysis followed by percutaneous coronary intervention (rescue/urgent or routine elective; n=708) or PPCI (n=8878). Patients receiving facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention within 3 hours from fibrinolysis were excluded. Propensity-matched 12-month clinical outcome was compared. In the propensity-matched cohort (n=706 in each group), the pharmacoinvasive group had shorter time to reperfusion therapy (165 versus 241 minutes; P<0.001) and higher rate of pre-percutaneous coronary intervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction grade 3 (50.4% versus 13.7%; P<0.001). Incidences of major bleeding and stroke during hospitalization were not different. Twelve-month rates of death and major adverse cardiac events (composite of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery) were similar between pharmacoinvasive strategy and PPCI: 4.4% versus 4.1% and 7.5% versus 7.8%, respectively. Equipoise between pharmacoinvasive strategy and PPCI for 12-month major adverse cardiac events occurred when percutaneous coronary intervention–related delay was ≈100 minutes.Conclusions—
ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving pharmacoinvasive treatment, compared with PPCI, had shorter time to reperfusion, higher culprit-vessel patency, and similar 12-month clinical outcome.