Thrombolysis or primary angioplasty? Reperfusion therapy for myocardial infarction in the UK

Postgraduate Medical Journal

Volumn 84, Issue 988, 2008, Pages 73-77

  Ratcliffe, A T ^a   Pepper, C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b LEEDS GENERAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FIBRINOLYTIC AGENT; STREPTOKINASE;

ACUTE HEART INFARCTION; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CLINICAL TRIAL; CORONARY ARTERY BLOOD FLOW; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; FIBRINOLYTIC THERAPY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEART MUSCLE REPERFUSION; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HOSPITAL CARE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PATIENT TRANSPORT; REVIEW; ST SEGMENT ELEVATION; TRANSLUMINAL CORONARY ANGIOPLASTY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM;

ANGIOPLASTY, TRANSLUMINAL, PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES; HUMANS; MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION; MYOCARDIAL REPERFUSION; PATIENT TRANSFER; THROMBOLYTIC THERAPY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 41149168671     PISSN: 00325473     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/pgmj.2007.060921     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Yellon DM, Baxter GF. Protecting the ischemic and reperfused myocardium in acute myocardial infarction: distant dream or near reality? Heart 2000;83:381-7.
2. Lopez AD, Murray CCJL. The global burden of disease, 1990-2020. Nature Med 1998;4:1241-3.
3. Hartwell D, Colquitt J, Loveman, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2005;9:1-99, iii-iv.
4. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trail of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither, among 17 187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet 1988;332:349-60.
5. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Streptochinasi nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI). Effectiveness of intravenous thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1986;i:397-402.
6. Ball SG. Thrombolysis: too old and too young. Heart 2002;87:312-13.
7. Keeley E, Boura J, Grines C. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 2003;361:13-20.
8. Zijlstra F, Hoorntje JC, de Boer MJ, et al. Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1413-19.
9. Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, et al. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study Group. N Engl J Med 1993;328:673-9.
10. Widimsky P, Bilkova D, Penicka M, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to hospitals without catheterization laboratory and randomized to immediate thrombolysis or interhospital transport for primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Five years' follow-up of the PRAGUE-2 trial. Eur Heart J 2007;28:679- 84.
11. Grines CL, Holmes DR, Reeder GS, et al. Immediate angioplasty compared with the administration of a thrombolytic agent followed by conservative treatment for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328:685-91.
12. 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. JAMA 2002;287:1943-51.
13. Grines CL, Westerhausen DR, Grines LL, et al. A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1713-19.
14. Berger AK, Schulman KA, Gersh BJ, et al. Every NR. Primary coronary angioplasty vs thrombolysis for the management of acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. JAMA 1999;282:341-8.
15. The Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO IIb) Angioplasty Substudy investigators. A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1621-8.
16. Stone GW, Grines CL, Vlietstra R, et al. Primary angioplasty is the preferred therapy for women and the elderly with acute myocardial infarction: results of the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;21:330A.
17. Tarantini G, Ramondo A, Napodano, et al. Time delay-adjusted survival benefit of angioplasty over thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: influence of time from symptom onset. Ital Heart J 2004;5:844-50.
18. 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.
19. Nallamothu BK, Bates EB. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: is timing (almost) everything? Am J Cardiol 2003;92:824-6.
20. Widimsky P, Groch L, Zeli'zko1 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 without a catheterization laboratory. The PRAGUE study. Eur Heart J 2000;21:823-31.
21. 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.
22. Zijlstra F, Patel A, Jones M, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with early (<2 h), intermediate (2-4 h) and late (>4 h) presentation treated by primary coronary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2002;23:550-7.
23. Silber S, Albertsson P, Fernandez-Avilès F. ESC guidelines: percutaneous coronary interventions (guidelines for). Eur Heart J 2005;26:804-7.
24. Chareonthaitaweea P, Gibbonsa BJ, Robertsb RS, et al. The impact of time to thrombolytic treatment on outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Heart 2000;84:142-8.
25. Weaver DW, Simes J, Betriu A, et al. Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review. JAMA 1997;278:2093-8.
26. Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Vesterlund T, et al. Danish multicenter randomized study on fibrinolytic therapy versus acute coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the Danish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction-2 (DANAMI-2). Am Heart J 2003;146:234-41.
27. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialist (FTT) Collaborative Group Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet 1994;343:311- 22.
28. Danchin N, Blanchard D, Steg PG, et al. Impact of prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction on 1-year outcome. Circulation 2004;110:1909-15.
29. Steg PG, Bonnefoy E, Chabaud S, et al. Impact of time to treatment on mortality after prehospital fibrinolysis or primary angioplasty. Circulation 2003;108:2851.
30. Boersma E, Maas AC, Deckers JW, et al. Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet 1996;348:771-5.
31. Stenestrand U, Lindback J, Wallentin L. Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 2006;296:1749-56.
32. Morgan KP, Leahy M, Sheedy C, et al. United Kingdom Primary Angioplasty Cost-effectiveness Study (UK Paces) 30 day out-come data. Heart 2005;91(Suppl I):A27.
33. De Boer MJ, Van Hout BA, Liem AL, et al. A cost-effective analysis of primary coronary angioplasty versus thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1995;76:830-3.
34. Stone GW, Grines CL, Rothbaum D, et al. Analysis of the relative costs and effectiveness of primary angioplasty versus tissue-type plasminogen activator: the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) trial. The PAMI Trial Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol 29:901-7.
35. Machecourt J, Bonnefoy E, Vanzetto G, et al. The Comparison of Angioplasty and Pre-Hospital Thrombolysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAPTIM) Cost-Efficacy Sub-Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005;45:4.
36. Lieu TA, Gurley RJ, Lundstrom RJ, et al. Projected cost-effectiveness of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1741-50.
37. Melikian N, Morgan K, Beatt KJ. Can the published cost analysis data for delivery of an efficient primary angioplasty service be applied to the modern National Health Service? Heart 2005;91:1262-4.