The latest meta-analysis comparing fibrinolysis with primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) has fuelled the discussion regarding the best reperfusion therapy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction. As far as patients presenting to centres with intervention facilities are concerned, the superiority of primary PCI has been unequivocally demonstrated. However, only a small proportion of patients with St-elevation myocardial infarction primarily present to an intervention centre, the majority go to a hospital without these facilities. The optimal reperfusion strategy for patients presenting to a nonintervention centre or for patients presenting in the prehospital setting has been studied less extensively and the question remains as to whether all these patients should be transferred to an intervention centre to undergo primary PCI. The available data to date on interhospital transport for primary PCI do show a mortality benefit for primary PCI. Yet, as far as inferences to clinical practice are concerned, it remains to be seen whether these studies are truly representative: almost half of patients in the transportation trials received streptokinase, they were treated relatively late, and the subsequent revascularisation strategy was rather conservative. The impact of primary PCI as compared with prehospital fibrinolysis in patients presenting in the prehospital setting has so far only been addressed in the randomised CAPTIM trial, without significant differences in outcome. Additional studies are warranted, with early treatment as primary focus. For patients presenting to non-intervention centres or prehospitally, the impact of triage, and of combined pharmaco-invasive reperfusion strategies are promising fields of further exploration.