Impact of the shift to a fibrinolysis-first strategy on care and outcomes of patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction during the COVID-19 pandemic—The experience from the largest cardiovascular-specific centre in China.

The impact of fibrinolysis-first strategy on outcomes of patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic was unknown. Data from STEMI patients presenting to Fuwai Hospital from January 23 to April 30, 2020 were compared with those during the equivalent period in 2019. The primary end-point was net adverse clinical events (NACE; a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial reinfarction, stroke, emergency revascularization, and bleeding over BARC type 3). The secondary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischaemia, cardiogenic shock, and exacerbated heart failure. The final analysis included 164 acute STEMI patients from 2020 and 240 from 2019. Eighteen patients (20.2% of those with indications) received fibrinolysis therapy in 2020 with a median door-to-needle time of 60.0 (43.5, 92.0) minutes. Patients in 2020 underwent primary PCI less frequently than their counterparts (14 [14.2%] vs. 144 [86.8%] in 2019, P < 0.001), and had a longer median door-to-balloon time (175 [121,213] minutes vs. 115 [83, 160] minutes in 2019, P = 0.009). Patients were more likely to undergo elective PCI (86 [52.4%] vs. 28 [11.6%] in 2019, P < 0.001). The in-hospital NACE was similar between 2020 and 2019 (14 [8.5%] vs. 25 [10.4%], P = 0.530), while more patients developed a secondary outcome in 2020 (20 [12.2%] vs. 12 [5.0%] in 2019, P = 0.009). The fibrinolysis-first strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a lower rate of timely coronary reperfusion and increased rates of recurrent ischaemia, cardiogenic shock, and exacerbated heart failure. However, the in-hospital NACE remained similar to that in 2019. • Fibrinolysis-first strategy for STEMI was used in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. • Delayed primary PCI and the index elective PCI are integral parts of the strategy. • This strategy decreased the rate of timely coronary reperfusion. • Rates of recurrent ischaemia, cardiogenic shock, and heart failure increased overall. • The strategy didn't increase the rate of in-hospital net adverse clinical events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]