Assessing the effectiveness of primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis and its relationship to time delay: A Bayesian evidence synthesis

Heart

Volumn 93, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1244-1250

  Asseburg, Christian ^a   Vergel, Yolanda Bravo ^a   Palmer, Stephen ^a   Fenwick, Elisabeth ^b   De Beider, Mark ^c   Abrams, Keith R ^d   Sculpher, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^c JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FIBRINOGEN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; TISSUE PLASMINOGEN ACTIVATOR;

ANGIOPLASTY; ARTICLE; BLOOD CLOT LYSIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG EFFICACY; FOLLOW UP; HEART INFARCTION; HEART REINFARCTION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANGIOPLASTY; BAYES THEOREM; FIBRINOLYTIC AGENTS; HUMANS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; ODDS RATIO; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RECURRENCE; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 34848833529     PISSN: 13556037     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2006.093336     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. British Heart Foundation. Incidence of myocardial infarction. http://www.heartstats.org/datapage.asp?id=1085 (accessed 3 July 2007).
2. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thromblytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomized trials. Lancet 2003;361:13-20.
3. Dalby M, Bouzamondo A, Lechat P, et al. Transfer for primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis.[see comment]. Circulation 2003;108:1809-14.
4. Grines C, Patel A, Zijlstra F, et al; PCAT collaborators. Primary coronary angioplasty compared with intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: six-month follow up and analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. Am Heart J 2003;145:47-57.
5. Cucherat M, Bonnefoy E, Tremeau G. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(3):CD001560.
6. Zijlstra F. Acute myocardial infarction: primary angioplasty. Heart 2001;85:705-9.
7. Smith D, Channer KS. Primary angioplasty should be first line treatment for acute myocardial infarction. For and against. BMJ 2004;328:1254-7.
8. Nallamothu BK, Bates ER. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: is timing (almost) everything? Am J Cardiol 2003;92:824-6.
9. Kent DM, Lau J, Selker HP. Balancing the benefits of primary angioplasty against the benefits of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: the importance of timing. Eff Clin Pract 2001;4:214- 20.
10. Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction - executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2004;110:588-636.
11. Silber S, Albertsson P, Avilés FF, et al. Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions: the Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2005;26:804-47.
12. Nallamothu BK, Antman EM, Bates ER. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: does the choice of fibrinolytic agent impact on the importance of time-to-treatment? Am J Cardiol 2004;94:772-4.
13. Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, et al. An introduction to Bayesian methods in health technology assessment. BMJ 1999;319:508-12.
14. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res 2001;10:277-303.
15. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation. Chichester: Wiley, 2004.
16. Larose DT, Dey DK. Grouped random effects models for Bayesian meta-analysis. Stat Med 1997;16:1817-29.
17. Akhras F, Abu Ousa A, Swann G, et al. Primary coronary angioplasty or intravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute myocardial infarction? Acute and late follow-up results in a new cardiac unit. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29(suppl):A235-6.
18. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 1999;341:625-34.
19. de Boer M, Hoorntje JCA, Ottervanger JP, et al. Immediate coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction: left ventricular ejection fraction, hospital mortality and reinfarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:1004-8.
20. Berrocal DH, Cohen MG, Spinetta AD, et al. Early reperfusion and late clinical outcomes in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction randomly assigned to primary percutaneous coronary intervention or streptokinase. Am Heart J 2003;146:E22.
21. Widimsky P, Budesinsky T, Vorac D, et al. Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Final results of the randomized national multicentre trial- PRAGUE-2. Eur Heart J 2003;24:94-104.
22. Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003;349:733-42.
23. Zijlstra F, de Boer MJ, Hoorntje JC, et al. A comparison of immediate coronary angioplasty with intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328:680-4.
24. Ribeiro EE, Silva LA, Carneiro R, et al. Randomized trial of direct coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:376-80.
25. Zijlstra F, Beukema WP, van't Hof AWJ, et al. Randomized comparison of primary coronary angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy in low risk patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:908-12.
26. Widimsky P, Groch L, Zelizko M, et al. Multicentre randomized trial comparing transport to primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis vs. combined strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to a community hospital withouth a catheterization laboratory. The PRAGUE study. Eur Heart J 2000;21:823-31.
27. de Boer MJ, Ottervanger JP, van't Hof AW, et al. Reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomized comparison of primary angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy [see comments.]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1723-8.
28. DeWood D, et al. Direct PTCA vs intravenous t-PA in acute myocardial infarction: results from a prospective radomized trial. Thrombolysis and Interventional Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction Symposium VI. Washington: George Washington University, 1990.
29. Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, et al. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328:685-91.
30. Gibbons RJ, Homes DR, Reeder GS, et al. Immediate angioplasty compared wtih the administration of a thrombolytic agent followed by conservative treatment for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328:685-91.
31. Ribichini F, Steffenino G, Dellavalle A, et al. Comparison of thrombolytic therapy and primary coronary angioplasty with liberal stenting for inferior myocardial infarction with precordial ST-segment depression: immediate and long-term results of a randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:1687-94.
32. Garcia E, Elizaga J, Soriano J, et al. Primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis with t-PA in anterior myocardial infarction: results from a single trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:605-11.
33. GUSTO investigators. A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. The Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO IIb) Angioplasty Subsrudy Investigators [published erratum appears in N Engl J Med 1997;337: 287], N Engl J Med 1997;336:1621-8.
34. Le May MR, Labinaz M, Davies RF, et al. Stenting versus thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction trial (STAT). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:985-91.
35. Bonnefoy E, Lapostolle F, Leizorovicz A, et al. Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study. Lancet 2002;360:825-9.
36. Schomig A, Kastrati A, Dirschinger J, et al. Coronary stenting plus platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000;343:385-91.
37. Vermeer F, Oude Ophuis AJ, van der Berg EJ, et al. Prospective randomised comparison between thrombolysis, rescue PTCA and primary PTCA in patients with extensive myocardial infarction admitted to a hospital without PTCA facilities: a safety and feasibility study. Heart 1999;82:426-31.
38. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, et al. Myocardial salvage after coronary stenting plus abciximab versus fibrinolysis plus abciximab in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002;359:920-5.
39. Aversano T, Aversano LT, Passamani E, et al. Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial [see comments]. JAMA 2002;287:1943-51.
40. Grines CL, Westerhausen DR Jr, Grines LL, et al. A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study [see comments]. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1713-9.
41. Boersma E, PCAT-2 Trialists' Collaborative Group. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J 2006;27:779-88.
42. Kent DM, Schmid CH, Lau J, et al. Is primary angioplasty for some as good as primary angioplasty for all? Modeling across trials and individual patients. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17:887-94.
43. Schwartz S. The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: the potential misuse of a concept and the consequences. Am J Public Health 1994;84:819-24.
44. Bravo Vergel Y, Palmer S, Asseburg C, et al. Is primary angioplasty cost effective in the UK? Results of a comprehensive decision analysis. Heart 2007;93:1238-43.
45. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, et al. A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002;55:86-94.
46. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, et al. Individual patient- versus group level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 2002;21:371-87.
47. Fresco C. Primary coronary angioplasty versus thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction [letter]. Lancet 2003;361:1303.
48. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, et al. Comprehensive decision analytical modelling in economic evaluation: a Bayesian approach. Health Econ 2004;13:203-26.