Five-year results from PRAGUE 2 confirm superiority of transfer strategy for STEMI
September 4, 2006 | Lisa Nainggolan

Dr Petr Widimsky

Barcelona, Spain - Long-term results from the PRAGUE 2 trial confirm that the early benefit gained by transporting STEMI patients for PCI rather than administering thrombolysis is sustained and, furthermore, is reflected in lower mortality rates at five years [1].

Dr Petr Widimsky (University Hospital Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic) reported the latest findings from PRAGUE 2 at the hotline session at the World Congress of Cardiology 2006 today.

Discussant Dr Anselm K Gitt (Herzzentrum, Ludwigshafen, Germany) said: "These findings are applicable and show that primary PCI provides benefit in an acute setting and in long-term survival. We must endeavor to make this strategy available to all STEMI patients through local and national networks."


Five-year benefits derived from differences in early event rates

PRAGUE 2—first reported four years ago—randomized 850 patients within 12 hours of STEMI onset to either treatment with thrombolysis (streptokinase) at their local hospital or to transport to a larger center where PCI could be performed.

The primary end point of 30-day mortality was lower in the PCI patients (6.8% vs 10% for thrombolysis patients), but the difference was not significant. However, the combined end point of death, MI, and stroke was significantly reduced, from 15.2% in the thrombolysis group to 8.4% in the PCI group (intention-to-treat analysis; p=0.003).

"But what we did not know was whether this effect would be sustained over the long term," Widimsky said.

The new data show that this early benefit persisted, leading to a significant difference in mortality between the groups at five years, he noted.

PRAGUE 2 five-year results

Outcome
Thrombolysis group
(n=416), %
Transfer PCI group
(n=428), %
p
Death/MI/stroke/
revascularization
73.3
58.5
<0.0001
Death
43.3
36.5
0.0417

To download table as a slide, click on slide logo below

"What this tells us is that the five-year benefits are derived from the differences in event rates in the first month of the trial," Widimsky concluded.


Next step is to spring into action
This tells us is that the five-year benefits are derived from the differences in event rates in the first month of the trial.

Discussant Gitt said that a number of trials and a recently published meta-analysis [2] have confirmed the benefit of early transfer for PCI over thrombolysis for STEMI.

The main limitation of PRAGUE 2—the use of streptokinase as the thromobolytic—has already been much discussed, he noted, but the DANAMI-2 results using tPA were similar to those of the Czech trial, laying to rest those criticisms.

One of the key strengths of PRAGUE 2, he explained, was the median transfer time for PCI—48 minutes—which "is well within the recommended time window of 90 minutes."

"Some small trials have shown a long-term benefit of the transport strategy, but the larger PRAGUE 2 results confirm this, and we see that the beneficial effect is sustained over the five years."

"These new results shows us that willing is not enough, we must 'do,' " he concluded.

Sources
  1. Widimsky P. PRAGUE 2 trial—five years follow-up. World Congress of Cardiology; September 4, 2006; Barcelona, Spain. Presentation 1741.
  2. Boersma E, The Primary Coronary Angioplasty vs Thrombolysis Group. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J 2006; 27:779-788.



Your comments
Five-year results from PRAGUE 2 confirm superiority of transfer strategy for STEMI
# 1 of 2
September 19, 2006 01:37 (EDT)
Petr Widimsky
Important mistake of TheHeart.org !
The slide and the data shown at theHeart.org is completely wrong ! It does not reflect the data I have shown in my presentation. Obviously high percentage in the table does not reflect mortality, but combined end-point !! I wonder, why TheHeart.org cannot ask the authors for approval to publish the things. Such a major mistake is clear violaton of my author rights.
Petr Widimsky
# 2 of 2
September 21, 2006 09:44 (EDT)
Lisa Nainggolan
PRAGUE-2 results
Dear Dr Widimsky

Could you please clarify the nature of the error that you are referring to in theheart.org story of the PRAGUE-2 results?

Is it that some of the numbers in the table are wrong? Or that one of the headings under outcome is incorrect?

The table is based on notes I took during your presentation and I have checked back to make sure I transferred these headings and figures correctly, and I have.

But of course I could have made a mistake copying down the table in the first place - if you would be so kind as to point out the nature of the error we will try and rectify this as soon as possible.

Please accept my apologies if there has been a mistake.

Best regards
--
Lisa Nainggolan
Medical Journalist
www.theheart.org
Tel: +44 (0) 208 464 9583



You have to be logged in to add a comment to this article
Login
Username 
Password 
  Forgot your password?
 
Remember me on this computer
 
Join theheart.org community
Five reasons to become a member of the most trusted source of cardiology news:
1Be part of the conversation in our blogs and discussion forum
2Share your thoughts on our news or educational programs
3Receive exclusive newsletters related to your field of interest
4Access unique continuous medical education content
5See and read what leaders have to say about cardiology today
It is free and it only takes five minutes to join!
 
button
Previews
Featured CME