Background: Recent randomized trials comparing primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolysis at the acute stage of myocardial infarction have shown a limited but definite advantage for primary angioplasty. The aim of this study was to document 1-year outcome in patients receiving either thrombolysis or primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in the "real world."
Methods and results: We used a nationwide prospective registry of all patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction in French intensive care units in November 1995. Of the 721 patients who received reperfusion therapy, 152 were treated with primary angioplasty and 569 received intravenous thrombolysis. The two groups were remarkably similar with respect to all baseline descriptors, except that a higher proportion of patients in the angioplasty group had a history of cerebrovascular accident (10% versus 2%, P<0.01). In-hospital outcome was not different in the 2 groups. One-year survival was 85.5% in the angioplasty group and 89. 5% in the thrombolysis group (P=0.18). Multivariate analysis showed that older age, anterior location of infarction, female sex, and history of heart failure were related to 1-year mortality. In patients alive on day 5, the use of primary angioplasty and higher Killip class were additional adverse prognostic indicators.
Conclusions: The results of this large registry of real-world practice indicate no survival benefit for patients treated with primary angioplasty compared with those who received thrombolytic therapy.