Key result
Catheter-based reperfusion outperforms fibrinolytics for treating acute myocardial infarction.
Why the study?
Does catheter-based reperfusion improve outcomes compared to fibrinolytics in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Does catheter-based reperfusion improve outcomes compared to fibrinolytics in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Catheter-based reperfusion is superior to fibrinolytics for acute MI, supporting the establishment of regional infarct intervention centers.
May favor primary PCI over fibrinolytics in acute MI; leaves open optimal regional implementation strategies.
Considerable new evidence has accumulated in randomized trials of myocardial reperfusion. The trials of catheter-based reperfusion compared with fibrinolytics have shown an advantage for angioplasty and stenting over pharmacologic therapy, even accounting for delays in transporting patients from facilities with intervention capabilities. On the basis of the recent trials, it is recommended that a regional center for infarct intervention be set up akin to regional trauma centers in the United States. Now that we have entered the third decade of myocardial reperfusion therapy, we can expect iterative improvement in all aspects, and ultimately a fused approach of pharmacology and mechanical therapies-to achieve the optimal outcomes and continue to lower the toll of fatality and morbidity of acute myocardial infarction (MI).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eric J. Topol (2003) conducted a review in Acute Myocardial Infarction. Catheter-based reperfusion (angioplasty and stenting) vs. Fibrinolytics was evaluated. Catheter-based reperfusion with angioplasty and stenting demonstrated an advantage over pharmacologic therapy with fibrinolytics for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: