Early XXXX in non-capable percutaneous coronary intervention centres: in situ fibrinolysis vs. percutaneous coronary intervention transfer.

@entity1 @entity583
AIMS: The preferred reperfusion strategy for early @entity583 ( @entity583 , defined as time from symptoms onset  <=120 min) in non-capable percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centres remains controversial. We sought to compare mortality of in situ fibrinolysis vs. PCI transfer in a real-life consecutive cohort of early @entity583 . METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective multicentre @entity583 registry (Catalonia 'Codi IAM' network) of all-comers in a non-capable PCI centre with symptom onset to first medical contact (FMC) <120 min. Two groups were identified: in situ fibrinolysis and transfer to a PCI-capable centre. Primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. We included 2470 @entity1 , of whom 2227 (90.2%) and 243 (9.8%) comprised the transfer and fibrinolysis groups, respectively. In the fibrinolysis group, diagnostic and system delays were shorter (24 vs. 31 min, P < 0.001; 45 vs. 119 min, P < 0.001, respectively). Thirty-day mortality was 7.7 and 5.1% in fibrinolysis and transfer groups, respectively (P = 0.09). However, @entity1 in the transfer group whose time FMC-device was achieved within 140 min were associated with significantly lower mortality (2.0% for FMC-device <99 min, and 4.6% for FMC-device 99-140 min; P < 0.01 and P = 0.03, respectively vs. fibrinolysis). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, reperfusion with fibrinolysis was an independent 30-day mortality predictive factor (odds ratio: 1.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-3.50; P = 0.04), together with age and Killip-Kimball class (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In early @entity583 @entity1 assisted in non-capable PCI centres, in situ fibrinolysis had worse prognosis than @entity1 transfer. Transfer to a PCI-capable centre seems recommended in @entity1 with FMC-device delay <140 min.
