Efficacy of thrombolytics in patients with acute coronary syndrome

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: None. Background/Introduction: The optimal choice of the thrombolytic drug for emergency revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) still remains to be defined. Percutaneous coronary intervention is a more safe and effective method of reperfusion compared with thrombolytic therapy, that’s why the last is relatively not common nowadays. But in the COVID-19 era in a number of cases some patients with ACS can’t be quickly hospitalized due to different reasons like the absence of the nearest available cardiovascular center, or lack of an ambulance. A long period of chest pain forces the doctors to use systemic thrombolytic therapy. PURPOSE: This study investigates the efficacy and safety of Alteplase, Prourokinase, Tenecteplase, and Streptokinase in patients with acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: A retrospective, open, non-randomized cohort study was conducted. We have analysed 600 patients with ACS, who underwent systemic thrombolytic therapy at the prehospital and in-hospital stages from 2009 to 2011. Patients were divided into several groups according to the thrombolytic agent administered: Alteplase (254 patients), Prourokinase (309 patients), Tenecteplase (6 patients), Streptokinase (31 patients). Treatments were to be given as soon as possible. The ECG reperfusion criterion was a decrease in the ST segment by 50% or more from the initial elevation. RESULTS: Among 600 patients (mean age, 61 years (SD = 20); 119 women [19.7%]), 440 had successful reperfusion. The median time from chest pain onset to the start of treatment was 3 hours (P < 0.001). The percentages of successful thrombolysis for each agent were similar: Alteplase 74,4% Prourokinase 71,2%, Tenecteplase 83%, Streptokinase 74,2%. No statistical differences were observed in thrombolytic results among these groups (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0,2868 to 1,217; P = 0.17). At the same time, the hospital treatment with prourokinase was more effective than prehospital care with prourokinase: 110 successful reperfusions in 138 patients (79.7%) and 110 successful reperfusions in 171 patients (64.3%), respectively. Regardless of the onset of the attack (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0,2004 to 0,9913; P = 0.05). The effectiveness of the other thrombolytics cannot be compared between prehospital care and hospital treatment due to the rare use at the hospital stage in our cases. In the study, there was also no statistical difference in complication rates among the treatment groups. Among all patients, there were 9 fatal outcomes (1.5%): Alteplase 3,15% Prourokinase 1,9%, Streptokinase 3,22%. Conclusion(s): In patients with ACS, all thrombolytic drugs showed similar effectiveness. There is no difference in the safety and efficacy among the agents in our study, but there is a difference in cost and route of administration. However, upcoming prospective trials with long follow-up periods might be expected to determine the most appropriate systemic thrombolytic drug.