Comparison of Long-Term Prognostic Evaluation Between Pre-Intervention Thrombolysis and Primary Coronary Intervention: A Prospective Randomized Trial

– Five-Year Results of the IMPORTANT Study –

抄録

Background: Acute efficacy and long-term prognostic differences between ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (primary PCI) and those treated with pre-intervention thrombolysis combined with back-up of facilitated PCI has not been evaluated in Japanese patients. The purpose of the present study was therefore to evaluate the differences between treatment with primary PCI (primary-PCI group) and pre-treatment with tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) combined with back-up of facilitated PCI (prior-t-PA group). Methods and Results: One hundred and one patients with STEMI were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Patients in the prior-t-PA group were then divided into 2 further groups, the facilitated-PCI and prior-t-PA alone groups. The patency rate at initial angiography, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months, and the major adverse cardiac event (MACE)-free rate at 5 years were then compared between the groups. The patency rate and LVEF in the prior-t-PA group was significantly higher than in the primary-PCI group (69% vs 17% respectively, P<0.001; 61.6±9.5% vs 55.0±11.6%, respectively; P=0.01). The MACE-free rate in the prior-t-PA group, however, was lower than in the primary-PCI group (58.7% vs 80.9%; P=0.03). The MACE-free rate in the facilitated-PCI group was equal to that in the primary-PCI group (73.7% vs 80.9%; P=0.39), whereas the MACE-free rate in the prior-t-PA-alone group was significantly lower than in the primary-PCI group (48.1% vs 80.9%; P=0.01). Conclusions: Primary PCI is superior to pre-intervention thrombolysis for long-term prognosis. Moreover, facilitated PCI may be as effective as primary PCI in patients with STEMI.  (Circ J 2010; 74: 1625 - 1635)