OBJECTIVES: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials that enrolled ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with fibrinolysis to assess the potential benefits of: 1) rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus no PCI; 2) systematic and early (< or =24 h) PCI versus delayed or ischemia-guided PCI; 3) fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI versus primary PCI alone. BACKGROUND: The impact of PCI strategies after fibrinolysis on mortality or reinfarction remains to be established. METHODS: The meta-analysis was performed using the odds ratio (OR) as the parameter of efficacy with a random effect model. Fifteen randomized trials (5,253 patients) were selected. The primary end point was mortality or the combined end point of death or reinfarction. RESULTS: Rescue PCI for failed fibrinolysis reduced mortality (6.9% vs. 10.7%) (OR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.99; p = 0.055) and the rate of death or reinfarction (10.8% vs. 16.8%) (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.89; p = 0.012) compared with a conservative approach. Systematic and early PCI performed during the "stent era" led to a nonsignificant reduction in mortality compared with delayed or ischemia-guided PCI (3.8% vs. 6.7%) (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.29 to 1.05; p = 0.07) and to a 2-fold reduction in the rate of death or reinfarction (7.5% vs. 13.2%) (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.83; p = 0.0067). This benefit contrasted with a nonsignificant increase in the rate of both mortality (5.5% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.33) or death or reinfarction (9.6% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.06) observed in the "balloon era." Fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI was associated with more reinfarction as compared with primary PCI alone (5.0% vs. 3.0%) (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.51; p = 0.013) without significant impact on mortality (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.83; p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support rescue PCI and systematic and early PCI after fibrinolysis. However, the current data do not support fibrinolysis-facilitated PCI in lieu of primary PCI alone.