Comparison of reperfusion strategies for st-segment–elevation myocardial infarction: A multivariate network meta-analysis

Reza Fazel, Timothy I. Joseph, Mullasari A. Sankardas, Duane S. Pinto, Robert W. Yeh, Dharam J. Kumbhani, Brahmajee K. Nallamothu

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

20 Scopus citations


BACKGROUND: We systematically reviewed trials comparing different reperfusion strategies for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction and used multivariate network meta-analysis to compare outcomes across these strategies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 31 contemporary trials in which patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to ≥2 of the following strategies: fibrinolytic therapy (n=4212), primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=6139), or fibrinolysis followed by routine early PCI (n=5006). We categorized the last approach as “facilitated PCI” when the median time interval between fibrinolysis to PCI was <2 hours (n=2259) and as a “pharmacoinvasive approach” when this interval was ≥2 hours (n=2747). We evaluated outcomes of death, nonfatal reinfarction, stroke, and major bleeding using a multivariate network meta-analysis and a Bayesian analysis. Among the strategies evaluated, primary PCI was associated with the lowest risk of mortality, nonfatal reinfarction, and stroke. For mortality, primary PCI had an odds ratio of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.61–0.89) when compared with fibrinolytic therapy. Of the remaining strategies, the pharmacoinvasive approach was the next most favorable with an odds ratio for death of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.59–1.08) compared with fibrinolytic therapy. The Bayesian model indicated that when the 2 strategies examining routine early invasive therapy following fibrinolysis were directly compared, the probability of adverse outcomes was lower for the pharmacoinvasive approach relative to facilitated PCI. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacoinvasive approach is safer and more effective than facilitated PCI and fibrinolytic therapy alone. This has significant implications for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction care in settings where timely access to primary PCI, the preferred treatment for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, is not available.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere015186
JournalJournal of the American Heart Association
Issue number12
StatePublished - Jun 16 2020


  • Facilitated percutaneous coronary intervention
  • Fibrinolytic therapy
  • Pharmacoinvasive approach
  • Primary percutaneous coronary intervention
  • ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of reperfusion strategies for st-segment–elevation myocardial infarction: A multivariate network meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this