Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Time delay in primary angioplasty: how relevant is it?
  1. Dariusz Dudek1,
  2. Tomasz Rakowski2,
  3. Artur Dziewierz2,
  4. Waldemar Mielecki2
  1. 1
    Department of Interventional Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
  2. 2
    2nd Department of Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
  1. Dr D Dudek, Department of Interventional Cardiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kopernika 17, 31-501 Krakow, Poland; mcdudek{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

See article on page 1244

Many clinical trials have shown that primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is more effective than thrombolysis for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).1 According to current guidelines, PPCI is the preferred form of reperfusion treatment for patients with STEMI. However, advantages of an invasive approach over fibrinolytic treatment may be blunted by several factors. Most important include low availability of experienced institutions offering 24 hour/7 day PPCI service and delay to invasive treatment due to prolonged transport. The delayed initiation of reperfusion treatment and its effect on clinical outcomes in STEMI and long-term mortality as well as logistic problems of the organisation of cardiac care have been extensively discussed.

In this issue of Heart, Asseburg et al present a meta-analysis of randomised studies comparing PPCI and fibrinolytic treatment for patients with STEMI (see article on page 1244).2 Of special interest is the application of Bayesian statistical methods for analysis of treatment efficacy with respect to PPCI-related delay. It is noteworthy that the analysis included 30-day and 6-month end points. The investigators demonstrated that the advantage of PPCI over fibrinolytic treatment was lost with increasing PPCI-related delay. Loss of the 6-month mortality advantage of PPCI over fibrinolytic treatment was observed for PPCI-related delay >90 minutes.

Occlusion of the infarct-related artery produces acute ischaemia, leading to progression of myocardial necrosis within several hours. A number of factors may affect progression of myocardial necrosis (completeness of coronary occlusion, presence of collaterals, preconditioning or an individual demand for myocardial oxygen). Despite the variability related to the factors mentioned above, duration of ischaemia remains the most important determinant of infarct size and myocardial damage.


Clinical trials of fibrinolytic agents have shown a significant relationship between symptom onset to reperfusion time and mortality. Earlier studies …

View Full Text


  • Conflict of interest: None declared.

  • Abbreviations:
    National Registry of Myocardial Infarction
    primary percutaneous coronary intervention
    ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Linked Articles