PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Wang, Jun AU - Zhang, Zhiqiang AU - Li, Jing AU - Tian, Xiaoxiang AU - Wang, Xiaozeng AU - Han, Yaling AU - , TI - Reperfusion strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction during hospitalization in China: Findings from the Improving Care for Cardiovascular disease in China (CCC)-Acute Cronary Synrome project AID - 10.1101/2023.12.10.23299554 DP - 2023 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2023.12.10.23299554 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/11/2023.12.10.23299554.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/11/2023.12.10.23299554.full AB - Objective To analyze the current situation of reperfusion strategies of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in China and evaluate the efficacy and safety of different reperfusion strategies, especially pharmaco-invasive percutaneous coronary intervention (PI-PCI).Methods The CCC-ACS (Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-Acute Coronary Syndrome) project is a joint study between the American Heart Association and Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC). STEMI patients who were recruited to the CCC-ACS project between November 2014 and December 2019 and admitted within 48 hours after symptom onset and treated by thrombolysis or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were included in this cohort study. The primary efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) that occurred during hospitalization. The primary safety outcomes were Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleedings criteria during hospitalization. Univariate regression logistic analysis, multivariable logistic regression analysis, propensity score-matched analysis, and inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis were performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different reperfusion strategies.Results Of 37733 STEMI patients, 35019 patients received primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), 999 patients received thrombolysis and 1715 patients received PI-PCI. Compared with PPCI, the thrombolysis group had higher incidence of all cause death (1.6% vs 2.8%, P =0.003), MACCEs (2.0% vs 3.6%, P < 0.001), and TIMI major bleedings (1.2% vs 2.2%, P=0.007). In the PI-PCI group, the incidence of MACCEs (2.0% vs 0.8%, P =0.001), all cause death (1.6% vs 0.4%, P =0.001), and cardiac death (1.5% vs 0.4%, P =0.001) were significantly lower than PPCI group; and the same conclusion was found in the subgroup of in time from first medical contact(FMC) to reperfusion ≥ 3h. However, the risk of TIMI minor bleedings (5.1% vs 6.7%, P=0.008) was higher in the PI-PCI group in the subgroup of in time from FMC to reperfusion ≥ 3h. Compared with timely PPCI group, the incidence of all cause death was significantly lower and the incidence of heart failure was higher in the scheduled PCI group. Compared with late PPCI group, the incidence of all cause death, MACCEs were significantly lower in scheduled PCI group. Compared with timely PPCI, the ratio of heart failure was statistically significant higher in the rescue PCI group. There was no significant difference in all outcomes in all models between rescue PCI group and late PPCI group. Moreover, compared with scheduled PCI ≤ 24h group, the scheduled PCI during 24h to 7d group had lower risk of TIMI major or minor bleedings and the scheduled PCI >7d group had the similar risk of bleedings; the scheduled PCI >7d group had lower risk of heart failure.Conclusions This study demonstrates that in STEMI patients who could not perform timely PPCI, PI-PCI is feasible, including rescue PCI,which can reduce the rate of MACCEs and mortality during hospitalization.But the increased risk of bleedings also should be noted.In scheduled PCI after successful thrombolysis, appropriate extension the time window of scheduled PCI can be considered under stable clinical conditions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe CCC-AF project was supported by a collaborative project of the American Heart Association and the Chinese Society of Cardiology. The American Heart Association received funding from Pfizer through an independent grant for learning and change and AstraZeneca as a quality improvement initiative.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The CCC-ACS project was approved by the institutional review board of Beijing Anzhen Hospital, with a waiver for informed consent. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (unique identifier: NCT02306616) and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesDue to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.