Key result
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is more efficacious than pre-hospital thrombolysis for STEMI if delivered within two hours, though thrombolysis remains useful for long transport times.
Why the study?
Does pre-hospital thrombolysis remain relevant compared to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STEMI?
Does pre-hospital thrombolysis remain relevant compared to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STEMI?
PPCI is the preferred treatment for STEMI if available within two hours, but pre-hospital thrombolysis remains a valid option when transport times are prolonged.
For much of the last 20 years thrombolysis has been the preferred initial treatment for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This treatment was originally given in hospital but was later used extensively and successfully before hospital admission. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) has proved itself to be more efficacious than thrombolysis, if it can be delivered within two hours, despite the extra time it takes to take patients to a Heart Attack Centre. Giving thrombolysis prior to the PPCI does not buy time safely. Prehospital thrombolysis still has a role when events long journies prevent timely access to the catheter laboratory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Justin Cooke (2012) conducted a review in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Pre-hospital thrombolysis vs. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) was evaluated. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is more efficacious than pre-hospital thrombolysis for STEMI if delivered within two hours, though thrombolysis remains useful for long transport times.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: