Objectives: We sought to determine the effectiveness of primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis in clinical practice.
Background: In clinical practice, primary angioplasty for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has not yet been proven more effective than intravenous thrombolysis, nor have subgroups of patients been identified who would perhaps benefit from primary angioplasty.
Methods: The pooled data of two AMI registries--the Maximal Individual TheRapy in Acute myocardial infarction (MITRA) study and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR)--were analyzed. A total of 9,906 lytic-eligible patients with AMI, with a pre-hospital delay of < or =12 h, were treated with either primary angioplasty (n = 1,327) or thrombolysis (n = 8,579).
Results: Despite differences in the patients' characteristics and concomitant diseases between the two groups, the prevalence of adverse risk factors was balanced. Univariate analysis of hospital mortality showed a more favorable course for patients treated with primary angioplasty: 6.4% versus 11.3% (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 0.67). This was confirmed by logistic regression analysis (multivariate OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.77). Primary angioplasty was associated with a lower mortality in all subgroups analyzed. We observed a significant correlation between mortality and absolute risk reduction (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001) in the different subgroups: as mortality increased, there was an increase in absolute benefit of primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis.
Conclusions: These large registry data showed the effect of primary angioplasty to be more favorable than thrombolysis for the treatment of patients with AMI in clinical practice. This effect was not restricted to special subgroups of patients. As mortality increased, the absolute benefit of primary angioplasty also increased.