Key result
Thrombolysis in routine care was associated with a long-term survival benefit compared to no thrombolysis, persisting up to 20 years post-AMI (adjusted HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84-1.00).
Why the study?
Does thrombolysis improve long-term survival in patients with myocardial infarction?
Cohort (n=3,092)
Does thrombolysis improve long-term survival in patients with myocardial infarction?
Thrombolysis for myocardial infarction confers a substantial long-term survival benefit lasting up to 20 years, reinforcing its value when primary PCI cannot be delivered within 120 minutes.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports thrombolysis consideration in AMI when PCI delayed; extends observational data but leaves open need for RCTs.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is a long-term survival benefit from receipt of thrombolysis in routine care particularly pre-hospital thrombolysis, using 20 year mortality data from the RCGP myocardial infarction (MI) cohort study. METHODS: During 1991-92 the RCGP MI study assessed GP delivery of thrombolysis. Participants who received pre-hospital thrombolysis (n = 290), thrombolysis in hospital (n = 781) or no thrombolysis (n = 2021) were followed and mortality data collected to June 2012. The relationship between thrombolysis and survival time was analysed using Cox regression at 28 days, 1, 5, 10, 15 years post-AMI, and at end of follow-up (~20 years post-AMI). RESULTS: Compared to those who did not receive it, participants who received thrombolysis had a significant survival benefit at 28 days [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-0.90]; 1 year (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.57-0.83); 5 years (adjusted HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86); 10 years (adjusted HR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.95) and 15 years (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.96) post-AMI until end of follow-up (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84-1.00). Pre versus in-hospital thrombolysis did not appear beneficial, although there was evidence among the pre-hospital group that short symptom onset-to-needle times conferred greater benefit. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial long-term survival benefits associated with thrombolysis when used in routine care. Although primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is now the choice treatment, thrombolysis remains an important option when pPCI cannot be delivered within 120 minutes of diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gilmour et al. (2015) conducted a cohort in Myocardial infarction (n=3,092). Thrombolysis vs. No thrombolysis was evaluated on Mortality at end of follow-up (~20 years post-AMI) (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-1.00). Thrombolysis in routine care was associated with a long-term survival benefit compared to no thrombolysis, persisting up to 20 years post-AMI (adjusted HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84-1.00).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: