-
In total, 19,112 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of STEMI were consecutively enrolled from January 2013 to December 2014. Of these, 2,554 were admitted to county-level hospitals. After further exclusion of 40 patients with missing data on reperfusion therapy, 2,514 patients were included in the core cohort for the analysis (Figure 1).
-
A total of 1,080 patients (43.0%) received reperfusion therapy, 664 (62.0%) underwent fibrinolysis, and 416 (38.0%) were treated with primary PCI. Fibrinolytic agents used included reteplase (44.0%), urokinase (40.0%), and alteplase (16.0%). The type of fibrinolytic agent was not documented in 12 patients (< 2.0%). At admission, most of the study cohort were self-transported rather than calling an ambulance, and a vast majority received guideline-recommended antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, as well as statins.
Patients without reperfusion therapy had an initial profile that was distinctly different from that of patients with either type of reperfusion treatment (Table 1). This subgroup was older and more likely to have a Killip class ≥ II and anterior MI. The reasons for missing reperfusion therapy are detailed in Figure 2. Prehospital delay > 12 h was the most common reason (43.0%), followed by missing timely diagnosis (18.0%) and concerns about the treatment risk (12.0%).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of the study cohort
Characteristics Fibrinolysis (n = 664) Primary PCI (n = 416) No reperfusion (n = 1,434) Poverall Pa Age, years, M (P25–P75) 61 (53–69) 60 (51–68) 68 (59–77) < 0.001 0.181 ≤ 60, n (%) 297/664 (45) 203/416 (49) 392/1,434 (27) < 0.001 0.192 Male, n (%) 493/664 (74) 317/416 (76) 917/1,434 (64) < 0.001 0.469 Hypertension, n (%) 280/664 (42) 209/416 (50) 653/1434 (46) 0.035 0.010 Diabetes, n (%) 71/664 (11) 73/416 (18) 200/1,434 (14) 0.006 0.001 Current smoking, n (%) 301/664 (45) 247/416 (59) 484/1,434 (34) < 0.001 < 0.001 Prior MI, n (%) 38/664 (6) 19/416 (5) 86/1,434 (6) 0.524 0.404 Prior stroke, n (%) 43/664 (7) 38/416 (9) 154/1,434 (11) 0.006 0.110 Heart rate, bpm* 73 (60–85) 72 (62–82) 78 (67–92) < 0.001 0.476 SBP, mmHg* 130 (110–149) 126 (110–140) 130 (110–147) 0.058 0.018 Killip class ≥ II, n (%)* 135/664 (20) 48/416 (12) 406/1,434 (28) < 0.001 0.001 eGFR, M (P25–P75) mL/(min∙1.73 m2)* 84 (63–108) 98 (72–135) 68 (47–94) 0.131 < 0.001 LVEF, n (%)* 54 (48–60) 56 (51–64) 53 (45–60) < 0.001 < 0.001 Anterior MI, n (%) 339/664 (51) 200/416 (48) 802/1,434 (56) 0.007 0.341 Total ischemic time, min†, M (P25–P75) 222 (120–306) 246 (222–366) NA NA 0.053 < 3 h, n (%) 264/664 (40) 123/416 (30) NA NA < 0.001 < 12 h, n (%) 647/664 (97) 385/416 (93) NA NA < 0.001 Prehospital delay > 12 h, n (%) 26/663 (4) 24/416 (6) 748/1,434 (51) < 0.001 0.211 Hospital approaching method, n (%) < 0.001 0.006 Self-transport 537/661 (81) 334/414 (80) 1,199/1,431 (84) By ambulance 117/661 (18) 78/414 (19) 211/1,431 (15) On site 7/661 (1) 2/414 (1) 21/1,431 (1) In-hospital medications, n (%) Aspirin 655/664 (99) 416/416 (100) 1,355/1,434 (95) < 0.001 0.015 P2Y12 inhibitor 632/664 (95) 411/416 (99) 1,311/1,434 (91) < 0.001 < 0.001 GPI 29/664 (4) 233/416 (56) 153/1,434 (11) < 0.001 < 0.001 LMWH 574/664 (86) 388/416 (93) 1,232/1,434 (86) < 0.001 < 0.001 β-blocker 434/664 (65) 311/416 (75) 891/1,434 (62) 0.001 0.001 Statins 622/664 (94) 383/416 (92) 1,350/1,434 (94) 0.328 0.315 Diuretics 131/661 (20) 65/395 (17) 452/1,422 (32) < 0.001 0.171 Nitrates 573/662 (87) 289/395 (73) 1,215/1,422 (85) < 0.001 < 0.001 Calcium antagonists 82/660 (12) 23/394 (6) 194/1,422 (14) < 0.001 < 0.001 ACEI/ARB 394/660 (60) 250/395 (63) 868/1,424 (60) 0.371 0.123 In-hospital outcomes, n (%) Death 57/664 (8.6) 15/416 (3.6) 248/1,434 (17.3) < 0.001 < 0.001 Reinfarction 15/664 (2.3) 3/416 (0.7) 25/1,431 (1.7) 0.124 0.041 Stroke 9/664 (1.4) 2/416 (0.5) 17/1,432 (1.2) 0.313 0.220 Major bleeding# 3/664 (0.5) 3/416 (0.7) 3/1,434 (0.2) 0.304 0.681 Note. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) or number/total number [n (%)]. *Measured on admission; †Defined as the symptom onset-to-balloon time for primary PCI and the symptom onset-to-needle time for fibrinolysis; #Including any fatal or life-threatening bleeding or bleeding associated with a 5-g/dL fall in hemoglobin or intracranial bleeding. PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; MI, myocardial infarction; SBP, systolic blood pressure; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NA, not available; GPI, glycoprotein IIb–IIIa inhibitors; LMWH, low-molecular-weight heparin; ACEI: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB: Angiotensin receptor blockers. aP, Fibrinolysis vs. Primary PCl. Compared to the fibrinolysis cohort, patients who underwent primary PCI had a similar median age and sex ratio but higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors (including diabetes, hypertension, and current smoking) (Table 1). The median (IQR) total ischemic time was 222 (120–306) min for fibrinolysis and 246 (222–366) min for primary PCI. There were significantly more patients treated within the recommended cut-off limits (< 3 h) in the fibrinolysis group than in the primary PCI group (40.0% vs. 30.0%, P < 0.001).
Of the 664 fibrinolytic-treated patients, 510 (77%) achieved successful clinical reperfusion (Table 2). Patients with successful fibrinolysis were more likely to be 60 years or younger, less likely to exhibit signs of heart failure (Killip class ≥ II) on admission, and have more frequent use of fibrin-specific agents than patients with failed fibrinolysis. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in patients with successful fibrinolysis than those with failed fibrinolysis (55.0% vs. 51.0%, P = 0.011). After treatment, only 44 (9.0%) patients with successful fibrinolysis and 26 (17.0%) with failed fibrinolysis underwent PCI within 24 h from onset (Table 2).
Table 2. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of fibrinolytic-treated patients
Characteristics Successful fibrinolysis (n = 510) Failed fibrinolysis (n = 154) P Age, years, M (P25–P75) 61 (52–69) 62 (55–69) 0.275 ≤ 60, n (%) 240/510 (47.0) 57/154 (37) 0.027 Male, n (%) 387/510 (76) 106/154 (69) 0.084 Hypertension, n (%) 211/510 (41) 69/154 (45) 0.451 Diabetes, n (%) 51/510 (10) 20/154 (13) 0.303 Current smoking, n (%) 239/510 (47) 62/154 (40) 0.148 Prior MI, n (%) 32/510 (6) 6/154 (4) 0.246 Prior stroke, n (%) 31/510 (6) 12/154 (8) 0.458 Heart rate, bpm*, M ( P25–P75), 72 (62–85) 75 (60–87) 0.713 SBP, mmHg*, M (P25–P75) 130 (111–150) 127 (110–143) 0.132 Killip class ≥ II, n (%)* 89/510 (18) 46/154 (30) 0.001 eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m2)*, M (P25–P75) 85 (63–108) 86 (62–108) 0.630 LVEF, n (%)* 55 (50–61) 51 (45–58) 0.011 Anterior MI, n (%) 251/510 (49) 88/154 (57) 0.084 Symptom to needle time, min, M (P25–P75) 183 (122–244) 244 (183–366) 0.956 < 3 h, n (%) 221/510 (43) 43/154 (28) < 0.001 Prehospital delay > 12 h, n (%) 15/509 (3) 11/154 (7) < 0.001 In-hospital medications, n (%) Aspirin 505/510 (99) 150/154 (97) 0.224 P2Y12 inhibitor 489/510 (96) 143/154 (93) 0.141 LMWH 458/510 (90) 116/154 (75) < 0.001 β-blocker 350/510 (69) 84/154 (55) 0.002 Statins 477/510 (94) 145/154 (94) 0.778 Diuretics 91/508 (18) 40/153 (26) 0.029 Nitrates 459/508 (90) 114/154 (74) < 0.001 Calcium antagonists 65/506 (13) 17/154 (11) 0.547 ACEI/ARB 318/506 (63) 76/154 (49) 0.011 Fibrinolytic agents, n (%) < 0.001 Urokinase 186/503 (37) 75/149 (50) Alteplase 72/503 (14) 33/149 (22) Reteplase 245/503 (49) 41/149 (28) Post treatment, n (%) 0.005 Medications 466/510 (91) 128/154 (83) PCI within 24 h from onset 44/510 (9) 26/154 (17) In-hospital outcomes, n (%) Death 20/510 (3.9) 37/154 (24.0) < 0.001 Reinfarction 10/510 (2.0) 5/154 (3.2) 0.357 Stroke 6/510 (1.2) 3/154 (1.9) 0.440 Major bleeding# 2/510 (0.4) 1/154 (0.6) 0.548 Note. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) or number/total number (n (%)). *Measuring on admission; #Including any fatal or life-threatening bleeding or bleeding associated with a 5-g/dL fall in hemoglobin or intracranial bleeding. MI, myocardial infarction; SBP, systolic blood pressure; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LMWH, low molecular weight heparin; ACEI: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB: Angiotensin receptor blockers; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. -
In-hospital mortality was the highest in patients without reperfusion therapy (17.3%); it was 8.6% in patients with fibrinolysis and 3.6% in those with primary PCI. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that both fibrinolysis (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34–0.91, P = 0.021) and primary PCI (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11–0.44, P < 0.001) were associated with reduced all-cause mortality during hospitalization compared to no reperfusion therapy (Table 3). Other in-hospital outcomes were similar in patients with different reperfusion strategies, except reinfarction, which was more common in the fibrinolysis group than the primary PCI group (2.3% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.041). Major bleeding was rare among the three groups (Table 1).
Table 3. Association of different reperfusion strategies on all-cause death
Reperfusion strategy In hospital 2 years OR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P Comparing with no reperfusion Fibrinolysis* 0.55 (0.34–0.91) 0.021 0.59 (0.44–0.80) < 0.001 Successful fibrinolysis* 0.50 (0.26–0.96) 0.036 0.36 (0.25–0.54) < 0.001 Failed fibrinolysis* 0.59 (0.22–1.15) 0.103 1.30 (0.93–1.81) 0.125 Primary PCI† 0.22 (0.11–0.44) < 0.001 0.32 (0.22–0.48) < 0.001 Comparing with primary PCI Fibrinolysis* 2.11 (1.02–4.36) 0.044 2.09 (1.25–3.49) 0.005 Successful fibrinolysis* 1.83 (0.77–4.36) 0.170 1.53 (0.85–2.73) 0.155 Note. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. *Adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total ischemic time, Killip class, anterior myocardial infarction, and use of fibrin-specific agents. †Adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total ischemic time, Killip class, and anterior myocardial infarction. The 2-year follow-up data were available for 2,407 patients (94.2%), with 510 deaths (21.2%): 391 (28.5%) for no reperfusion, 92 (14.5%) for fibrinolysis, and 27 (6.8%) for primary PCI (Figure 3). After Cox multivariate analysis, both fibrinolysis (HR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.44–0.80) and primary PCI (HR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.22–0.48) predicted lower mortality at 2 years than no reperfusion therapy (Table 3).
Among fibrinolytic-treated patients, a relatively benign survival outcome was observed among patients with successful fibrinolysis, in whom the cumulative rates of death during hospitalization and 2 years were 3.9% and 8.8%, respectively. Conversely, in patients with failed fibrinolysis, the in-hospital and 2-year death rates were 24.0% and 33.1%, respectively (Table 2 and Figure 3). Successful fibrinolysis was associated with similar in-hospital (OR = 1.83, 95% CI: 0.77–4.36, P = 0.170) and 2-year mortality to primary PCI (HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.85–2.73) (Table 3). Failed fibrinolysis, however, shared a similar in-hospital (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22–1.15, P = 0.103) and 2-year (HR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.93–1.81, P = 0.125) mortality to no reperfusion.
doi: 10.3967/bes2023.110
Long-Term Prognosis of Different Reperfusion Strategies for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Chinese County-Level Hospitals: Insight from China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the long-term prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with different reperfusion strategies in Chinese county-level hospitals Methods A total of 2,514 patients with STEMI from 32 hospitals participated in the China Acute Myocardial Infarction registry between January 2013 and September 2014. The success of fibrinolysis was assessed according to indirect measures of vascular recanalization. The primary outcome was 2-year mortality. Results Reperfusion therapy was used in 1,080 patients (42.9%): fibrinolysis (n = 664, 61.5%) and primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n = 416, 38.5%). The most common reason for missing reperfusion therapy was a prehospital delay > 12 h (43%). Fibrinolysis [14.5%, hazard ratio (HR): 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44–0.80] and primary PCI (6.8%, HR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.22–0.48) were associated with lower 2-year mortality than those with no reperfusion (28.5%). Among fibrinolysis-treated patients, 510 (76.8%) achieved successful clinical reperfusion; only 17.0% of those with failed fibrinolysis underwent rescue PCI. There was no difference in 2-year mortality between successful fibrinolysis and primary PCI (8.8% vs. 6.8%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.85–2.73). Failed fibrinolysis predicted a similar mortality (33.1%) to no reperfusion (33.1% vs. 28.5%, HR = 1.30, 95% CI: 0.93–1.81). Conclusion In Chinese county-level hospitals, only approximately 2/5 of patients with STEMI underwent reperfusion therapy, largely due to prehospital delay. Approximately 30% of patients with failed fibrinolysis and no reperfusion therapy did not survive at 2 years. Quality improvement initiativesare warranted, especially in public health education and fast referral for mechanical revascularization in cases of failed fibrinolysis. -
Key words:
- Acute myocardial infarction /
- Reperfusion therapy /
- Rural /
- Outcome
&These authors contributed equally to this work.
注释:1) AUTHOR STATEMENT: -
Table 1. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of the study cohort
Characteristics Fibrinolysis (n = 664) Primary PCI (n = 416) No reperfusion (n = 1,434) Poverall Pa Age, years, M (P25–P75) 61 (53–69) 60 (51–68) 68 (59–77) < 0.001 0.181 ≤ 60, n (%) 297/664 (45) 203/416 (49) 392/1,434 (27) < 0.001 0.192 Male, n (%) 493/664 (74) 317/416 (76) 917/1,434 (64) < 0.001 0.469 Hypertension, n (%) 280/664 (42) 209/416 (50) 653/1434 (46) 0.035 0.010 Diabetes, n (%) 71/664 (11) 73/416 (18) 200/1,434 (14) 0.006 0.001 Current smoking, n (%) 301/664 (45) 247/416 (59) 484/1,434 (34) < 0.001 < 0.001 Prior MI, n (%) 38/664 (6) 19/416 (5) 86/1,434 (6) 0.524 0.404 Prior stroke, n (%) 43/664 (7) 38/416 (9) 154/1,434 (11) 0.006 0.110 Heart rate, bpm* 73 (60–85) 72 (62–82) 78 (67–92) < 0.001 0.476 SBP, mmHg* 130 (110–149) 126 (110–140) 130 (110–147) 0.058 0.018 Killip class ≥ II, n (%)* 135/664 (20) 48/416 (12) 406/1,434 (28) < 0.001 0.001 eGFR, M (P25–P75) mL/(min∙1.73 m2)* 84 (63–108) 98 (72–135) 68 (47–94) 0.131 < 0.001 LVEF, n (%)* 54 (48–60) 56 (51–64) 53 (45–60) < 0.001 < 0.001 Anterior MI, n (%) 339/664 (51) 200/416 (48) 802/1,434 (56) 0.007 0.341 Total ischemic time, min†, M (P25–P75) 222 (120–306) 246 (222–366) NA NA 0.053 < 3 h, n (%) 264/664 (40) 123/416 (30) NA NA < 0.001 < 12 h, n (%) 647/664 (97) 385/416 (93) NA NA < 0.001 Prehospital delay > 12 h, n (%) 26/663 (4) 24/416 (6) 748/1,434 (51) < 0.001 0.211 Hospital approaching method, n (%) < 0.001 0.006 Self-transport 537/661 (81) 334/414 (80) 1,199/1,431 (84) By ambulance 117/661 (18) 78/414 (19) 211/1,431 (15) On site 7/661 (1) 2/414 (1) 21/1,431 (1) In-hospital medications, n (%) Aspirin 655/664 (99) 416/416 (100) 1,355/1,434 (95) < 0.001 0.015 P2Y12 inhibitor 632/664 (95) 411/416 (99) 1,311/1,434 (91) < 0.001 < 0.001 GPI 29/664 (4) 233/416 (56) 153/1,434 (11) < 0.001 < 0.001 LMWH 574/664 (86) 388/416 (93) 1,232/1,434 (86) < 0.001 < 0.001 β-blocker 434/664 (65) 311/416 (75) 891/1,434 (62) 0.001 0.001 Statins 622/664 (94) 383/416 (92) 1,350/1,434 (94) 0.328 0.315 Diuretics 131/661 (20) 65/395 (17) 452/1,422 (32) < 0.001 0.171 Nitrates 573/662 (87) 289/395 (73) 1,215/1,422 (85) < 0.001 < 0.001 Calcium antagonists 82/660 (12) 23/394 (6) 194/1,422 (14) < 0.001 < 0.001 ACEI/ARB 394/660 (60) 250/395 (63) 868/1,424 (60) 0.371 0.123 In-hospital outcomes, n (%) Death 57/664 (8.6) 15/416 (3.6) 248/1,434 (17.3) < 0.001 < 0.001 Reinfarction 15/664 (2.3) 3/416 (0.7) 25/1,431 (1.7) 0.124 0.041 Stroke 9/664 (1.4) 2/416 (0.5) 17/1,432 (1.2) 0.313 0.220 Major bleeding# 3/664 (0.5) 3/416 (0.7) 3/1,434 (0.2) 0.304 0.681 Note. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) or number/total number [n (%)]. *Measured on admission; †Defined as the symptom onset-to-balloon time for primary PCI and the symptom onset-to-needle time for fibrinolysis; #Including any fatal or life-threatening bleeding or bleeding associated with a 5-g/dL fall in hemoglobin or intracranial bleeding. PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; MI, myocardial infarction; SBP, systolic blood pressure; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NA, not available; GPI, glycoprotein IIb–IIIa inhibitors; LMWH, low-molecular-weight heparin; ACEI: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB: Angiotensin receptor blockers. aP, Fibrinolysis vs. Primary PCl. Table 2. Baseline characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of fibrinolytic-treated patients
Characteristics Successful fibrinolysis (n = 510) Failed fibrinolysis (n = 154) P Age, years, M (P25–P75) 61 (52–69) 62 (55–69) 0.275 ≤ 60, n (%) 240/510 (47.0) 57/154 (37) 0.027 Male, n (%) 387/510 (76) 106/154 (69) 0.084 Hypertension, n (%) 211/510 (41) 69/154 (45) 0.451 Diabetes, n (%) 51/510 (10) 20/154 (13) 0.303 Current smoking, n (%) 239/510 (47) 62/154 (40) 0.148 Prior MI, n (%) 32/510 (6) 6/154 (4) 0.246 Prior stroke, n (%) 31/510 (6) 12/154 (8) 0.458 Heart rate, bpm*, M ( P25–P75), 72 (62–85) 75 (60–87) 0.713 SBP, mmHg*, M (P25–P75) 130 (111–150) 127 (110–143) 0.132 Killip class ≥ II, n (%)* 89/510 (18) 46/154 (30) 0.001 eGFR, mL/(min∙1.73 m2)*, M (P25–P75) 85 (63–108) 86 (62–108) 0.630 LVEF, n (%)* 55 (50–61) 51 (45–58) 0.011 Anterior MI, n (%) 251/510 (49) 88/154 (57) 0.084 Symptom to needle time, min, M (P25–P75) 183 (122–244) 244 (183–366) 0.956 < 3 h, n (%) 221/510 (43) 43/154 (28) < 0.001 Prehospital delay > 12 h, n (%) 15/509 (3) 11/154 (7) < 0.001 In-hospital medications, n (%) Aspirin 505/510 (99) 150/154 (97) 0.224 P2Y12 inhibitor 489/510 (96) 143/154 (93) 0.141 LMWH 458/510 (90) 116/154 (75) < 0.001 β-blocker 350/510 (69) 84/154 (55) 0.002 Statins 477/510 (94) 145/154 (94) 0.778 Diuretics 91/508 (18) 40/153 (26) 0.029 Nitrates 459/508 (90) 114/154 (74) < 0.001 Calcium antagonists 65/506 (13) 17/154 (11) 0.547 ACEI/ARB 318/506 (63) 76/154 (49) 0.011 Fibrinolytic agents, n (%) < 0.001 Urokinase 186/503 (37) 75/149 (50) Alteplase 72/503 (14) 33/149 (22) Reteplase 245/503 (49) 41/149 (28) Post treatment, n (%) 0.005 Medications 466/510 (91) 128/154 (83) PCI within 24 h from onset 44/510 (9) 26/154 (17) In-hospital outcomes, n (%) Death 20/510 (3.9) 37/154 (24.0) < 0.001 Reinfarction 10/510 (2.0) 5/154 (3.2) 0.357 Stroke 6/510 (1.2) 3/154 (1.9) 0.440 Major bleeding# 2/510 (0.4) 1/154 (0.6) 0.548 Note. Data are reported as median (interquartile range) or number/total number (n (%)). *Measuring on admission; #Including any fatal or life-threatening bleeding or bleeding associated with a 5-g/dL fall in hemoglobin or intracranial bleeding. MI, myocardial infarction; SBP, systolic blood pressure; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LMWH, low molecular weight heparin; ACEI: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; ARB: Angiotensin receptor blockers; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. Table 3. Association of different reperfusion strategies on all-cause death
Reperfusion strategy In hospital 2 years OR (95% CI) P HR (95% CI) P Comparing with no reperfusion Fibrinolysis* 0.55 (0.34–0.91) 0.021 0.59 (0.44–0.80) < 0.001 Successful fibrinolysis* 0.50 (0.26–0.96) 0.036 0.36 (0.25–0.54) < 0.001 Failed fibrinolysis* 0.59 (0.22–1.15) 0.103 1.30 (0.93–1.81) 0.125 Primary PCI† 0.22 (0.11–0.44) < 0.001 0.32 (0.22–0.48) < 0.001 Comparing with primary PCI Fibrinolysis* 2.11 (1.02–4.36) 0.044 2.09 (1.25–3.49) 0.005 Successful fibrinolysis* 1.83 (0.77–4.36) 0.170 1.53 (0.85–2.73) 0.155 Note. OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. *Adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total ischemic time, Killip class, anterior myocardial infarction, and use of fibrin-specific agents. †Adjusted for age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, current smoking, total ischemic time, Killip class, and anterior myocardial infarction. -
[1] Chang J, Liu X, Sun Y. Mortality due to acute myocardial infarction in China from 1987 to 2014: Secular trends and age-period-cohort effects. Int J Cardiol, 2017; 227, 229−38. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.130 [2] The Writing Committee of the Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China. Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China 2021: An updated summary. Biomed Environ Sci, 2022; 35, 573−603. [3] Li J, Li X, Ross JS, et al. Fibrinolytic therapy in hospitals without percutaneous coronary intervention capabilities in China from 2001 to 2011: China PEACE-retrospective AMI study. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care, 2017; 6, 232−43. doi: 10.1177/2048872615626656 [4] China Chest Pain Center Alliance, China Cardiovascular Health Alliance et al. Summary of the China chest pain center quality control Report (2021). Chin J Intervent Cardiol, 2022; 30, 321−7. (In Chinese [5] Feng L, Li M, Xie W, et al. Prehospital and in-hospital delays to care and associated factors in patients with STEMI: an observational study in 101 non-PCI Hospitals in China. BMJ Open, 2019; 9: e031918. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031918 [6] Li GX, Zhou B, Qi GX, et al. Current trends for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction during the Past 5 Years in rural areas of China's Liaoning province: a multicenter study. Chin Med J (Engl), 2017; 130, 757−66. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.202742 [7] Zhang Y, Wang S, Cheng Q, et al. Reperfusion strategy and in-hospital outcomes for ST elevation myocardial infarction in secondary and tertiary hospitals in predominantly rural central China: a multicentre, prospective and observational study. BMJ Open, 2021; 11, e053510. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053510 [8] Xu HY, Yang YJ, Wang CS, et al. Association of hospital-level differences in care with outcomes among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in China. JAMA Netw Open, 2020; 3, e2021677. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.21677 [9] Xu HY, Li W, Yang JG, et al. The China Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAMI) Registry: A national long-term registry-research-education integrated platform for exploring acute myocardial infarction in China. Am Heart J, 2016; 175, 193-201. e3. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2015.04.014 [10] Sun H, Yang YJ, Xu HY, et al. Survey of medical care resources of acute myocardial infarction in different regions and levels of hospitals in China. Chin J Cardiol, 2016; 44, 565−9. (In Chinese [11] Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Glob Heart, 2012; 7, 275−95. doi: 10.1016/j.gheart.2012.08.001 [12] Chinese Society of Cardiology of Chinese Medical Association, Editorial board of Chinese Journal of Cardiology. Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Chin J Cardiol, 2010; 38, 675−690. (In Chinese [13] Shavadia J, Ibrahim Q, Sookram S, et al. Bridging the gap for nonmetropolitan STEMI patients through implementation of a pharmacoinvasive reperfusion strategy. Canad J Cardiol, 2013; 29, 951−9. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2012.10.018 [14] Masuda J, Kishi M, Kumagai N, et al. Rural-urban disparity in emergency care for acute myocardial infarction in Japan. Circ J, 2018; 82: 1666−74. doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-17-1275 [15] Hillerson D, Li S, Misumida N, et al. Characteristics, process metrics, and outcomes among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction in rural vs urban areas in the US: a report from the US national cardiovascular data registry. JAMA Cardiol, 2022; 7, 1016−24. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.2774 [16] Yin XJ, He YB, Zhang J, et al. Patient-level and system-level barriers associated with treatment delays for ST elevation myocardial infarction in China. Heart, 2020; 106, 1477−82. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316621 [17] Wu C, Zhang XY, Yu M, et al. Analysis of in-hospital outcome of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing various thrombolytic strategies in China. Chin Circulat J, 2021; 36, 1070−76. (In Chinese [18] Borgia F, Goodman SG, Halvorsen S, et al. Early routine percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis vs. standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J, 2010; 31, 2156−69. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq204 [19] D'Souza SP, Mamas MA, Fraser DG, et al. Routine early coronary angioplasty versus ischaemia-guided angioplasty after thrombolysis in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J, 2011; 32, 972−82. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq398 [20] Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J, 2017; 39, 119−77. [21] Larson DM, Duval S, Sharkey SW, et al. Safety and efficacy of a pharmaco-invasive reperfusion strategy in rural ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with expected delays due to long-distance transfers. Eur Heart J, 2012; 33, 1232−40. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr403 [22] Zhang Y, Yu B, Han Y, et al. Protocol of the China ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) Care Project (CSCAP): a 10-year project to improve quality of care by building up a regional STEMI care network. BMJ Open, 2019; 9, e026362. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026362 [23] National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. China public health statistical yearbook 2020. Beijing: Peking Union Medical College Publishing House. 2021. (In Chinese [24] Huber K, Gersh BJ, Goldstein P, et al. The organization, function, and outcomes of ST-elevation myocardial infarction networks worldwide: current state, unmet needs and future directions. Eur Heart J, 2014; 35, 1526−32. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu125 [25] West RM, Cattle BA, Bouyssie M, et al. Impact of hospital proportion and volume on primary percutaneous coronary intervention performance in England and Wales. Eur Heart J, 2011; 32, 706−11. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq476 [26] Doll JA, Nelson AJ, Kaltenbach LA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention operator profiles and associations with in-hospital mortality. Circul Cardiovascul Intervent, 2022; 15, e010909. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.121.010909 [27] Danchin N, Coste P, Ferrières J, et al. Comparison of thrombolysis followed by broad use of percutaneous coronary intervention with primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation acute myocardial infarction: data from the french registry on acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (FAST-MI). Circulation, 2008; 118, 268−76. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.762765 [28] Stenestrand U, Lindbäck J, Wallentin L, et al. Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA, 2006; 296, 1749−56. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.14.1749 [29] Ross AM, Gao RL, Coyne KS, et al. A randomized trial confirming the efficacy of reduced dose recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in a Chinese myocardial infarction population and demonstrating superiority to usual dose urokinase: the TUCC trial. Am Heart J, 2001; 142, 244−7. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.116963