Why the study?
Do fibrin-specific tissue plasminogen activators improve efficacy and safety compared to nonfibrin-specific activators in patients with thrombotic occlusive diseases?
Do fibrin-specific tissue plasminogen activators improve efficacy and safety compared to nonfibrin-specific activators in patients with thrombotic occlusive diseases?
Given equivalent efficacy and potentially higher risks of intracerebral hemorrhage and costs with fibrin-specific agents, nonfibrin-specific activators like streptokinase or urokinase may be a safer choice in many thrombotic situations.
Thrombotic occlusive diseases are manifested in several disorders that have significant morbidity and mortality, including acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, and cerebrovascular accidents. This review summarizes the recently published literature covering thrombolytic therapies in these diseases, with particular attention to comparisons between the fibrin-specific tissue plasminogen activators (alteplase, reteplase, and tenecteplase) and the nonfibrin-specific activators (streptokinase or urokinase plasminogen activator). These agents act to convert plasminogen to plasmin, which in turn cleaves fibrin as part of the lysis process. Fibrin-specific activators were anticipated to be more efficacious and safer than nonspecific agents in thrombolytic occlusive diseases because of their pathophysiologically restricted mechanism of action. However, the fibrin-specific activators also lyse physiological hemostatic plugs, which can result in costly adverse events. Efficacy of fibrin-specific tissue plasminogen activators has been shown to be generally equivalent, with similar mortality rates compared with nonspecific agents; however, fibrin-specific agents may be associated with an increased incidence of intracerebral hemorrhage and with increased costs. Therefore, it appears that given equivalent efficacy, nonfibrin-specific activators, such as streptokinase or urokinase, may be a safer choice in many thrombotic situations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruce A. Perler (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: