Key result
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention was not significantly superior to thrombolysis for reducing in-hospital mortality when adjusted for treatment year (OR 1.2; 95% CI 0.8-1.9; p=0.42).
Why the study?
Does reperfusion therapy (primary PCI or thrombolysis) reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI compared to no reperfusion?
Population
7,098 patients with acute coronary syndromes presenting with ST segment elevation or left bundle branch…
Comparison
Primary percutaneous coronary intervention or… vs No reperfusion
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
in-hospital
Authors
Loading...
No adjusted superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis; leaves open reperfusion benefit versus none in this STEMI cohort.
Observational (n=7,098)
Yes
Does reperfusion therapy (primary PCI or thrombolysis) reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with STEMI compared to no reperfusion?
Odds Ratio: 1.2 (95% CI 0.8–1.9)
p-value: p=0.42
The shift towards primary PCI as the preferred reperfusion strategy for STEMI in Switzerland from 1997 to 2002 was associated with a significant reduction in overall in-hospital mortality.
Patrick B. Mark (2005) conducted an observational in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=7,098). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. Thrombolysis was evaluated on In-hospital mortality (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.9, p=0.42). Primary percutaneous coronary intervention was not significantly superior to thrombolysis for reducing in-hospital mortality when adjusted for treatment year (OR 1.2; 95% CI 0.8-1.9; p=0.42).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: