OBJETIVO: Análise comparativa dos resultados hospitalares em pacientes infartados reperfundidos por meio de uma intervenção coronariana percutânea de resgate ou primária. MÉTODOS: Selecionados pacientes consecutivos, submetidos a uma intervenção percutânea no infarto do miocárdio (< 24h), entre 1997 e 2000, incluídos no registro nacional multicêntrico CENIC, comparando os resultados hospitalares, entre aqueles submetidos ao procedimento de resgate (n=840) ou primário (n=8.531). RESULTADOS: Os pacientes que realizaram intervenção de resgate eram significativamente mais jovens, com infarto anterior, associado à presença de disfunção ventricular, porém com menor porcentual de doença coronariana multiarterial, comparados aos primários. As taxas de implante de stents foram similares (56,9% vs. 54,9%; p=0,283), mas o sucesso do procedimento foi menor nos casos de resgate (88,1% vs. 91,2%; p<0,001), cursando com maior mortalidade (7,4% vs. 5,6%; p=0,034), comparado à intervenção primária; nova revascularização (< 0,5%), cirurgia de emergência (< 0,3%) e reinfarto (< 2,6%) foram similares. A análise multivariada identificou o procedimento de resgate como preditor de mortalidade ao final da fase hospitalar [RC (IC=95%) = 1,60 (1,17-2,19); p=0,003]. CONCLUSÃO: Neste registro nacional, a intervenção de resgate apresentou uma maior mortalidade hospitalar, comparada ao procedimento primário.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a comparative analysis of in-hospital results obtained from AMI patients who underwent rescue or primary PTCA. METHODS: From the Brazilian Interventional National Registry (CENIC), we selected all consecutive patients who underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction (< 24 hours), between 1997 and 2000, analyzing those undergoing a rescue (n=840) or a primary (n=8,531) procedure, and comparing their in-hospital results. RESULTS: Rescue patients were significantly younger males with anterior wall infarctions, associated with left ventricular dysfunction, but had less multivessel disease, compared with those treated with primary intervention. Coronary stents were implanted in at similar rates (56.9% vs. 54.9%; P=0.283). Procedural success were lower for rescue cases (88.1% vs. 91.2%; P<0.001), with higher mortality (7.4% vs. 5.6%; P=0.034), compared with the primary intervention group; target vessel revascularization (< 0.5%), emergency bypass surgery (< 0.3%) and reinfarction (< 2.6%) rates were similar for both strategies. Multivariate analysis identified the rescue procedure as a predictor of in-hospital death [OR(CI=95%) = 1.60 (1.17-2.19); P=0.003]. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent a rescue coronary intervention had higher in-hospital death rates compared with those who underwent a primary coronary intervention.