Why the study?
Does primary percutaneous coronary intervention improve outcomes compared to intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction in the UK NHS?
Does primary percutaneous coronary intervention improve outcomes compared to intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction in the UK NHS?
The review discusses the organizational and financial implications of adopting primary PCI over thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction within the UK NHS.
Intravenous thrombolysis and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are alternative treatment options for coronary reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction. Recent trials and meta-analyses have produced increasing evidence that primary coronary intervention produces better long-term outcomes for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Most of these studies, however, were performed in US or European healthcare systems and may not be directly transferable to an NHS setting. The widespread introduction of primary PCI would have major implications for the organisation of healthcare provision within the UK. An alternative to PCI that may produce similar outcomes at a reduced cost might be early (pre-hospital) administration of thrombolysis. In an era of unprecedented financial attention, the importance of interventions that are simultaneously beneficial to the patient and economical to the NHS has never been more important. The evidence base for primary PCI and its possible use in the NHS are discussed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ratcliffe et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: