August 20, 2003New England Journal of Medicine
Primary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction — Is It Worth the Wait?
Why the study?
Does primary percutaneous coronary intervention improve clinical outcomes compared to fibrinolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Population
Patients with acute myocardial infarction
Comparison
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs Fibrinolytic therapy
Design
Editorial
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is recognized as the reperfusion therapy of choice over fibrinolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction due to superior clinical and safety outcomes.
Structured PICO
Does primary percutaneous coronary intervention improve clinical outcomes compared to fibrinolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
P
Population
Patients with acute myocardial infarction
I
Intervention
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (mechanical reperfusion therapy)
C
Comparator
Fibrinolytic therapy
O
Outcome
Rates of death, reinfarction, intracranial bleeding, reocclusion of the infarct-related artery, and recurrent ischemiahard clinical
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is recognized as the reperfusion therapy of choice over fibrinolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction due to superior clinical and safety outcomes.
Cite This Study
Alice K. Jacobs (2003) studied this question.