Intracoronary streptokinase did not significantly improve global ejection fraction compared to conventional heparin therapy in acute myocardial infarction (45.9% vs 46.1%, p=NS).
RCT (n=250)
No
Does intracoronary streptokinase followed by heparin improve global and regional ejection fraction or reduce infarct size in patients with acute myocardial infarction compared to conventional therapy with heparin?
Intracoronary streptokinase followed by heparin did not significantly improve global or regional ejection fraction or reduce infarct size compared to conventional heparin therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Absolute Event Rate: 45.9% vs 46.1%
p-value: p=NS
The Western Washington Intracoronary Streptokinase In Myocardial Infarction Trial enrolled 250 patients with acute myocardial infarction. After the coronary angiographic diagnosis of thrombosis, patients were randomly assigned to receive either conventional therapy with heparin or intracoronary streptokinase followed by heparin. Of the 232 patients who survived at least 60 days, 207 (89%) underwent radionuclide ventriculographic determination of global and regional ejection fraction at a single institution at 62 +/- 35 days after infarction. In the first 100 patients, infarct size was also determined by quantitative single-photon emission tomographic imaging with thallium-201 (201Tl) and expressed as a percentage of the left ventricle with a perfusion defect. Overall, global ejection fraction did not differ between patients treated with streptokinase (45.9 +/- 13.9%; n = 115) and control patients (46.1 +/- 14.4%; n = 92, p = NS). Similarly, the regional posterolateral, inferior, and anteroseptal ejection fraction did not differ between the two groups. Infarct size as measured by 201Tl tomography was 19.4 +/- 12.8% (n = 52) of the left ventricle for the streptokinase group and 19.6 +/- 11.8% (n = 48; p = NS) for the control group. When patients were compared within groups by electrocardiographic location of infarction, time to treatment, or the presence or absence of vessel opening, there were no significant differences between streptokinase and control patients. Statistical inclusion of the 18 patients who died early and were unavailable for study also failed to modify the results, except for a possible reduction in inferior infarct size as measured by 201Tl tomography.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Ritchie et al. (Thu,) conducted a rct in acute myocardial infarction (n=250). intracoronary streptokinase followed by heparin vs. conventional therapy with heparin was evaluated on global ejection fraction (p=NS). Intracoronary streptokinase did not significantly improve global ejection fraction compared to conventional heparin therapy in acute myocardial infarction (45.9% vs 46.1%, p=NS).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: