Key result
Intracoronary urokinase and streptokinase had similar efficacy in opening the artery (60% vs 57%), but urokinase caused significantly fewer bleeding complications (11% vs 29%, p<0.05).
Why the study?
Does intracoronary urokinase improve efficacy and safety compared to streptokinase in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Population
80 patients with acute myocardial infarction
Comparison
Intracoronary urokinase infused into the… vs Intracoronary streptokinase infused into the…
Design
RCT, randomized, double-blind
Authors
Loading...
May favor intracoronary urokinase over streptokinase in AMI for fewer bleeds; confirms similar efficacy with better safety in this RCT.
RCT (n=80)
Double-blind
randomized
Does intracoronary urokinase improve efficacy and safety compared to streptokinase in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Absolute Event Rate: 60% vs 57%
Intracoronary urokinase and streptokinase offer similar thrombolytic efficacy in acute myocardial infarction, but urokinase results in less systemic fibrinolysis and fewer bleeding complications.
Tennant et al. (1984) conducted an RCT in acute myocardial infarction (n=80). Urokinase vs. Streptokinase was evaluated on successfully opening the artery. Intracoronary urokinase and streptokinase had similar efficacy in opening the artery (60% vs 57%), but urokinase caused significantly fewer bleeding complications (11% vs 29%, p<0.05).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: