Key result
Rescue PCI is compared to conservative treatment for six-month outcomes in STEMI after failed fibrinolysis.
Why the study?
The future outcomes of STEMI patients depend on culprit artery patency after reperfusion therapy, but fibrinolysis remains the most common strategy worldwide despite PPCI advantages.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Comparison
Rescue PCI vs conservative treatment in STEMI patients with failed fibrinolytic therapy
Design
Other
Follow-up
Six months
No practice change indicated; leaves open optimal strategy after failed fibrinolysis in STEMI.
Introduction The benefits of an open infarct artery are well recognized, but despite proven advantage of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), fibrinolysis remains the most common reperfusion strategy worldwide [1]. The future of patients with STEMI is dependent on the patency the culprit artery after reperfusion therapy [2]. Fibrinolysis is unable
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salem et al. (2015) studied this question. Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention was evaluated against conservative treatment for six-month outcomes in STEMI patients with failed fibrinolytic therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: