2003
DOI: 10.1016/j.accreview.2003.09.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
191
0
12

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 161 publications
(207 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
191
0
12
Order By: Relevance
“…Better outcome in the angioplasty group was demonstrated, with regards to the composite endpoint of death, reinfarction and stroke at 30 days, in patients who presented to the invasive treatment centers (6.7% in the angioplasty group vs. 12.3% in the fibrinolysis group; p = 0.05). This held true for those who presented to the referral hospitals and needed to be transported for angioplasty (8.5% in the angioplasty group vs. 14.2% in the fibrinolysis group; p < 0.001) [17]. A total of 96% of the patients in this study were transferred within 2 h from the referral hospital to the invasive treatment centers.…”
Section: Percutaneous Coronary Interventionmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Better outcome in the angioplasty group was demonstrated, with regards to the composite endpoint of death, reinfarction and stroke at 30 days, in patients who presented to the invasive treatment centers (6.7% in the angioplasty group vs. 12.3% in the fibrinolysis group; p = 0.05). This held true for those who presented to the referral hospitals and needed to be transported for angioplasty (8.5% in the angioplasty group vs. 14.2% in the fibrinolysis group; p < 0.001) [17]. A total of 96% of the patients in this study were transferred within 2 h from the referral hospital to the invasive treatment centers.…”
Section: Percutaneous Coronary Interventionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Diabetics made up around 7% of the study patients, and there were no differences in their randomization to the two treatment groups. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that diabetics had benefit with angioplasty as well (odds ratio was 0.70 favoring angioplasty; p = 0.51) [17]. In a meta-analysis of 23 trials comparing the two reperfusion strategies by Keeley et al, angioplasty was superior to thrombolysis for ST elevation myocardial infarction at reducing short and long term complications of myocardial infarction [18].…”
Section: Percutaneous Coronary Interventionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to systemic fibrinolysis when performed by experienced operators in a timely manner in high-volume centers [1][2][3]. Recent, mainly European studies suggest that even transfer to primary PCI is a safe strategy with superior results as compared to fibrinolytic therapy at a non-PCI-capable facility [4][5][6][7][8].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patienten mit Ereignis zeigten größere Infarkte (14% ± 10% vs. 8% ± 6% DE), eine schlechtere linksventrikuläre Funktion (LVEF 44% ± 17% vs. 48% ± 14%) und mehr mikrovaskuläre Obstruktion (NR 3% ± 5% vs. 2% ± 3%). Nach stufenweiser logistischer Regression verblieb NR > 0,5% LVM als prognostisch unabhängi-ger Parameter (Odds-Ratio = 3,9, Konfidenzintervall 1, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]9). Schlussfolgerung: NR als Korrelat einer mikrovaskulären Obstruktion ist bei PCI-behandelten STEMIPatienten im regionalen STEMI-Netzwerk HIVE ein unabhängiger Marker für eine schlechte Prognose.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified
“…Dieses Konzept übernimmt konsequent die in Leitlinien formulierten Therapieempfehlungen der Akut- intervention als primäre Therapie bei STEMI in die Klinikroutine [6][7][8]. Studien zeigen, dass die Akutintervention in erfahrenen Zentren der intrahospitalen Lyse beim STEMI vor allem bezüglich der kurz-und mittelfristigen Sterblichkeit, der Reinfarktquote, aber auch der Inzidenz intrakranieller Blutungen überlegen ist [3,16,17]. Dies gilt auch für die Verlegung von Patienten aus Häusern ohne Interventionsmöglichkeit in Krankenhäuser mit PCI-Möglichkeit, wenn der Zeitverlust durch den Transport maximal 2-3 h beträgt [18].…”
Section: Diskussionunclassified