Pharmacoinvasive Strategy vs. Primary PCI in STEMI: A Prospective Registry in a Large Geographical Area (PHASE-MX)
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03974581|
Recruitment Status : Recruiting
First Posted : June 5, 2019
Last Update Posted : June 5, 2019
For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), immediate and timely reperfusion treatment is essential. Pharmacoinvasive strategy (PIs) exploits the widespread availability of fibrinolysis and its early administration to restore some degree of myocardial blood flow, coupled with the complete restoration of the culprit coronary artery patency that can be obtained with subsequent angioplasty. Several trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of PIs when compared with PPCI; however, real-world data is lacking, especially in developing countries.
The aim of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of PIs with PPCI in real-world patients with STEMI presenting to large geographical area.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment|
|Myocardial Infarction, Acute||Other: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention Other: Pharmacoinvasive strategy|
For patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), immediate and timely reperfusion treatment is essential. The optimal choice between primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and intravenous thrombolytic agents depends upon the timeliness of effective delivery, as well as the total ischemic time. While PPCI is widespread available in the USA and Europe, limited resources and lack of infrastructure means that patients with STEMI in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) receive significantly less reperfusion therapy, and when they do, they are more prone to receive thrombolytic agents.
Pharmacoinvasive strategy (PIs) exploits the widespread availability of fibrinolysis and its early administration to restore some degree of myocardial blood flow, coupled with the complete restoration of the culprit coronary artery patency that can be obtained with subsequent angioplasty. Several trials have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of PIs when compared with PPCI; however, real-world data is lacking. The aim of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of PIs with PPCI in real-world patients with STEMI presenting to large geographical area.
PHASE-Mx study is a prospective, real-world registry including patients with STEMI finally treated at a large cardiovascular center. In brief, patients aged 18-99 years old with the diagnosis of STEMI whom received either PI or PPCI during the first 12 hours since symptom onset were included. Patients could have a first medical contact directly at the study center or in one of other 60 hospitals along the STEMI network. Patients with a discharge diagnosis other than STEMI were excluded. Four of the investigators recorded the study data at admission and during hospital stay. Main efficacy outcome will be the composite of cardiovascular death, cardiogenic shock, reinfarction or stroke. Main safety outcome will include rates of major bleeding.
|Study Type :||Observational [Patient Registry]|
|Estimated Enrollment :||326 participants|
|Target Follow-Up Duration:||1 Year|
|Official Title:||Pharmacoinvasive Strategy vs. Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Prospective, Real-World Registry in a Large Geographical Area|
|Actual Study Start Date :||April 30, 2018|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||April 30, 2020|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||May 30, 2021|
Patients whom received pharmacoinvasive strategy (fibrinolysis and subsequently PCI) as reperfusion treatment.
Other: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention
Patient receives primary percutaneous coronary intervention as part of his treatment; decision to allocate by treating physician.
Other Name: Primary PCI
Patients whom primary PCI as reperfusion treatment.
Other: Pharmacoinvasive strategy
Patient receives primary fibrinolysis and subsequent coronary angiography (pharmacoinvasive strategy) as part of his treatment; cases with failed fibrinolysis are scheduled for immediate rescue PCI. Decision to allocate by treating physician.
- Composite of cardiovascular mortality + cardiogenic shock + reinfarction + stroke. [ Time Frame: 30-days follow-up. ]Main efficacy combined outcome including cardiovascular mortality, cardiogenic shock, reinfarction and stroke.
- Major bleeding [ Time Frame: Major bleeding during a 30-days follow-up. ]Major bleeding during a 30-days follow-up.
- All-cause mortality [ Time Frame: 1-year follow up. ]All cause mortality at 1-year follow up.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03974581
|Contact: Diego Araiza-Garaygordobil, MD||01 55 5573 email@example.com|
|Instituto Nacional de Cardiología "Ignacio Chavez"||Recruiting|
|Mexico City, Mexico, 14030|
|Contact: Diego Araiza-Garaygordobil, MD 5573 2911 firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Principal Investigator: Alexandra Arias-Mendoza, MD|