초록
Background: This study was conducted to provide a comparison between the clinical outcomes of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and that of fibrinolysis followed by routine invasive treatment in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods: A total of 184 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI or fibrinolysis followed by a routine invasive therapy were enrolled from 2004 to 2011, and their major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) were compared. Results: Among the 184 patients, 146 patients received primary PCI and 38 patients received fibrinolysis. The baseline clinical characteristics were similar between both groups, except for triglyceride level ($68.1{\pm}66.62$ vs. $141.6{\pm}154.3mg/dL$, p=0.007) and high density lipoprotein level ($44.6{\pm}10.3$ vs. $39.5{\pm}8.1mg/dL$, p=0.005). The initial creatine kinase-MB level was higher in the primary PCI group ($71.5{\pm}114.2$ vs. $35.9{\pm}59.9ng/mL$, p=0.010). The proportion of pre-thrombolysis in MI 0 to 2 flow lesions (92.9% vs. 73.0%, p<0.001) was higher and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were administered more frequently in the primary PCI group. There was no difference in the 12-month clinical outcomes, including all-cause mortality (9.9% vs. 8.8%, p=0.896), cardiac death (7.8% vs. 5.9%, p=0.845), non-fatal MI (1.4% vs. 2.9%, p=0.539), target lesion revascularization (5.7% vs. 2.9%, p=0.517), and stroke (0% vs. 0%). The MACEs free survival rate was similar for both groups (odds ratio, 0.792; 95% confidence interval, 0.317-1.980; p=0.618). The clinical outcome of thrombolysis was not inferior, even when compared with primary PCI performed within 90 minutes. Conclusion: Early fibrinolysis with optimal antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy followed by appropriate invasive procedure would be a comparable alternative to treatment of MI, especially in cases of shorter-symptom-to-door time.