Key result
Rescue PCI reduced the 6-month composite of death, reinfarction, and heart failure to 29.2% compared with 41.0% for fibrinolysis and PCI only for recurrent ischemia (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Does rescue PCI reduce death, reinfarction, and heart failure compared to fibrinolysis and PCI only for recurrent ischemia?
Population
Patients receiving fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction
Comparison
Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention or… vs Fibrinolysis and PCI only for recurrent ischemia
Design
Editorial
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Rescue PCI after fibrinolytic therapy significantly reduces the composite of death, reinfarction, and heart failure compared to conservative management, though the timing of systematic PCI is critical.
Structured PICO
Does rescue PCI reduce death, reinfarction, and heart failure compared to fibrinolysis and PCI only for recurrent ischemia?
P
Population
1,117 patients from a meta-analysis of 8 trials evaluating rescue PCI after fibrinolytic therapy.
I
Intervention
Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or systematic PCI after fibrinolysis
C
Comparator
Fibrinolysis and PCI only for recurrent ischemia
O
Outcome
Composite of death, reinfarction, and heart failurecomposite
Main Result
Absolute Event Rate: 29.2% vs 41%
p-value: p=<0.001
Rescue PCI after fibrinolytic therapy significantly reduces the composite of death, reinfarction, and heart failure compared to conservative management, though the timing of systematic PCI is critical.
Cite This Study
Harvey D. White (2008) conducted an editorial in Myocardial infarction (n=1,117). Rescue PCI vs. Fibrinolysis and PCI only for recurrent ischemia was evaluated on Death, reinfarction, and heart failure at 6 months (p=<0.001). Rescue PCI reduced the 6-month composite of death, reinfarction, and heart failure to 29.2% compared with 41.0% for fibrinolysis and PCI only for recurrent ischemia (P<0.001).