Trends in acute reperfusion therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction from 1999 to 2006: We are getting better but we have got a long way to go

Abstract

Aim Many patients who are eligible for acute reperfusion therapy receive it after substantial delays or not at all. We wanted to determine whether over the years more patients are receiving reperfusion therapy.Methods and resultsThis analysis is based on 10 954 patients with ST elevation or left bundle-branch block presenting within 12 h of symptom onset and enrolled in the GRACE registry between April 1999 and June 2006. Over this time, there was an increasing trend in use of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from 15 to 44 (P < 0.001), while use of fibrinolytic therapy decreased (from 41 to 16; P < 0.01). No trend in median time to primary PCI was seen but that for fibrinolysis declined significantly (from 40 to 34; P < 0.0001). Hospital mortality declined (6.9-5.4; P < 0.01); the relationship between observed and expected mortality improved over time (P = 0.06). Nevertheless, 33 of patients still received no reperfusion therapy. Factors associated with reperfusion use included age; prior myocardial infarction, heart failure or coronary artery bypass graft surgery; history of diabetes; female sex; and delay from symptom onset to hospital arrival. In 2006, 52 of patients receiving fibrinolysis had door-to-needle times >30 min and 42 of those undergoing primary PCI had door-to-balloon times >90 min.ConclusionPrimary PCI is now used much more than fibrinolysis. Although hospital mortality and delays to fibrinolytic reperfusion have improved, over 40 of patients reperfused still receive it outside the time window recommended, and one-third of potentially eligible patients receive no reperfusion. © 2008. The European Society of Cardiology All rights reserved.