Abstract: AIM To compare the effects of doctor-to-patient PCI and patient-to-doctor PCI on the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS Fifty AMI cases treated by doctor-to-patient PCI mode and 50 AMI cases treated by patient-to-doctor PCI mode were respectively randomly collected. Time prior to intervention of catheter time, time prior to intervention of balloon dilation, complete revascularization rate, hospital mortality in the acute phase and main adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in 6 months between the 2 modes were compared. RESULTS The total transportation distance of both groups was 35-100 km, about 40-90 min ride. Between the two groups, there was no significant difference in the time prior to intervention of catheter time and the time prior to intervention of balloon dilation (P>0.05). However, the rate of complete revascularization and the incidence of complications in the acute phase in doctor-to-patient PCI group were better than those in patient-to-doctor PCI group (P<0.05). The two groups were followed up for 6 months and no significant difference was found in MACE between the two groups. CONCLUSION Compared with patient-to-doctor PCI, doctor-to-patient PCI does not shorten the time prior to intervention of catheter and the time prior to intervention of balloon dilation. But doctor-to-patient PCI produces some positive effect in improving the rate of blood flow reconstruction and reducing hospital complications in the acute phase.