Acute myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke: differences and similarities in reperfusion therapies—a review

Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) share a number of similarities. However, important differences in pathophysiology demand a disease-tailored approach. In both conditions, fast treatment plays a crucial role as ischaemia and eventually infarction develop rapidly. Furthermore, in both fields, the introduction of fibrinolytic treatments historically preceded the implementation of endovascular techniques. However, in contrast to STEMI, only a minority of AIS patients will eventually be considered eligible for reperfusion treatment. Non-invasive cerebral imaging always precedes cerebral angiography and thrombectomy, whereas coronary angiography is not routinely preceded by non-invasive cardiac imaging in patients with STEMI. In the late or unknown time window, the presence of specific patterns on brain imaging may help identify AIS patients who benefit most from reperfusion treatment. For STEMI, a uniform time window for reperfusion up to 12 h after symptom onset, based on old placebo-controlled trials, is still recommended in guidelines and generally applied. Bridging fibrinolysis preceding endovascular treatment still remains the mainstay of reperfusion treatment in AIS, while primary percutaneous coronary intervention is the strategy of choice in STEMI. Shortening ischaemic times by fine-tuning collaboration networks between ambulances, community hospitals, and tertiary care hospitals, optimizing bridging fibrinolysis, and reducing ischaemia-reperfusion injury are important topics for further research. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the common as well as diverging pathophysiology behind current reperfusion strategies and to explore new ways to enhance their clinical benefit.