WORLD JOURNAL OF ADVANCE
HEALTHCARE RESEARCH

Alaa Raslan*, MD, Muhammad Alkhayer, MD, Houssam Balleh, PHD

ABSTRACT

Background: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice in civilized countries for acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In developing countries, emergent PCI is still a challenge and fibrinolysis therapy Remains a viable option for reperfusion therapy .Materials and methods: This is retrospective study of 133 patients with STEMI in Tishreen University Hospital between August 2014 and August 2016. Patients were divided into two subgroups. The first subgroup underwent primary PCI whereas the other subgroup was treated with streptokinase infusion. Patients were monitored for re-hospitalization, re-infarction, mortality, cardiogenic shock, heart failure. We also recorded the time needed to apply the method of treatment .Aim of study: To compare outcomes after using streptokinase infusion or primary PCI in managing STEMI patients in our hospital .Results: 63 patients underwent PCI and 70 patients received streptokinase therapy. Delay Time to apply reperfusion therapy was shorter in the streptokinase group. Streptokinase group had higher rates of mortality of cardiac and non-cardiac causes, cardiogenic shock and re-infarction. Whereas PCI group had higher rates of re-hospitalization of cardiac causes and worsening/new-onset heart failure .Conclusion: Primary PCI might be preferred over streptokinase in the setting of acute STEMI in developing countries. Delay time should be taken into consideration.

[Full Text Article] [Download Certificate]