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? - 26/08/11
Doi : 10.1016/j.amjcard.2004.05.064
Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, MpH a, Elliott M. Antman, MD b, Eric R. Bates, MD a, ⁎ 
a Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MichiganUSA
b Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MassachusettsUSA
*Dr. Bates' address is: B1-238 Taubman Center, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-0366
Résumé |
The mortality benefit associated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction may be lost if door-to-balloon time is delayed by >1 hour compared with tissue plasminogen activator therapy door-to-needle time. When a substantial delay in initiating primary PCI is likely, reperfusion therapy with second- or third-generation fibrinolytic agents should be strongly considered.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.© 2004
Excerpta Medica Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Vol 94 - N° 6
P. 772-774 - septembre 2004 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Impact of peri-stent remodeling on in-stent neointimal proliferation in acute myocardial infarction
- Tomoyori Nakatogawa, Kiyoshi Hibi, Eri Furukawa, Teruyasu Sugano, Masami Kosuge, Takeshi Takamura, Noritaka Toda, Kengo Tsukahara, Jun Okuda, Kazuo Kimura, Satoshi Umemura
- Usefulness of tirofiban among patients treated without percutaneous coronary intervention (TIMI high risk patients in PRISM-PLUS)
- David A. Morrow, Marc S. Sabatine, Elliott M. Antman, Christopher P. Cannon, Eugene Braunwald, Pierre Theroux
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?