Key result
In patients with acute myocardial infarction, there were no significant differences in infarct size (%LV scar 23.7% vs 19.6%, p=0.16) or left ventricular ejection fraction between treatment with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis.
Cohort (n=88)
No
No infarct size or LVEF advantage with primary PCI versus thrombolysis; leaves open optimal reperfusion strategy in acute MI.
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is considered the optimum reperfusion strategy in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, there remains some debate surrounding the benefits of PPCI over the early administration of thrombolytic therapy. In the UK, so called "door to needle" times for thrombolysis are generally less than 30 minutes and therefore, may decrease the reported benefits of delayed PPCI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mather et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Acute myocardial infarction (n=88). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) vs. Thrombolysis was evaluated on Infarct size (%LV scar) (p=0.16). In patients with acute myocardial infarction, there were no significant differences in infarct size (%LV scar 23.7% vs 19.6%, p=0.16) or left ventricular ejection fraction between treatment with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: