BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of trials have shown greater benefits from angioplasty than thrombolysis after an acute myocardial infarction, but the time delay in initiating angioplasty needs to be considered. OBJECTIVE: To extend earlier meta-analyses by considering 1- and 6-month outcome data for both forms of reperfusion. To use Bayesian statistical methods to quantify the uncertainty associated with the estimated relationships. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2003 was updated. Data on key clinical outcomes and the difference between time-to-balloon and time-to-needle were independently extracted by two researchers. Bayesian statistical methods were used to synthesise evidence despite differences between reported follow-up times and outcomes. Outcomes are presented as absolute probabilities of specific events and odds ratios (ORs; with 95% credible intervals (CrI)) as a function of the additional time delay associated with angioplasty. RESULTS: 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with 3760 and 3758 patients randomised to primary angioplasty and thrombolysis, respectively. The mean (SE) angioplasty-related time delay (over and above time to thrombolysis) was 54.3 (2.2) minutes. For this delay, mean event probabilities were lower for primary angioplasty for all outcomes. Mortality within 1 month was 4.5% after angioplasty and 6.4% after thrombolysis (OR = 0.68 (95% CrI 0.46 to 1.01)). For non-fatal reinfarction, OR = 0.32 (95% CrI 0.20 to 0.51); for non-fatal stroke OR = 0.24 (95% CrI 0.11 to 0.50). For all outcomes, the benefit of angioplasty decreased with longer delay from initiation. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of primary angioplasty, over thrombolysis, depends on the former's additional time delay. For delays of 30-90 minutes, angioplasty is superior for 1-month fatal and non-fatal outcomes. For delays of around 90 minutes thrombolysis may be the preferred option as assessed by 6-month mortality; there is considerable uncertainty for longer time delays.
BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of trials have shown greater benefits from angioplasty than thrombolysis after an acute myocardial infarction, but the time delay in initiating angioplasty needs to be considered. OBJECTIVE: To extend earlier meta-analyses by considering 1- and 6-month outcome data for both forms of reperfusion. To use Bayesian statistical methods to quantify the uncertainty associated with the estimated relationships. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis published in 2003 was updated. Data on key clinical outcomes and the difference between time-to-balloon and time-to-needle were independently extracted by two researchers. Bayesian statistical methods were used to synthesise evidence despite differences between reported follow-up times and outcomes. Outcomes are presented as absolute probabilities of specific events and odds ratios (ORs; with 95% credible intervals (CrI)) as a function of the additional time delay associated with angioplasty. RESULTS: 22 studies were included in the meta-analysis, with 3760 and 3758 patients randomised to primary angioplasty and thrombolysis, respectively. The mean (SE) angioplasty-related time delay (over and above time to thrombolysis) was 54.3 (2.2) minutes. For this delay, mean event probabilities were lower for primary angioplasty for all outcomes. Mortality within 1 month was 4.5% after angioplasty and 6.4% after thrombolysis (OR = 0.68 (95% CrI 0.46 to 1.01)). For non-fatal reinfarction, OR = 0.32 (95% CrI 0.20 to 0.51); for non-fatal stroke OR = 0.24 (95% CrI 0.11 to 0.50). For all outcomes, the benefit of angioplasty decreased with longer delay from initiation. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of primary angioplasty, over thrombolysis, depends on the former's additional time delay. For delays of 30-90 minutes, angioplasty is superior for 1-month fatal and non-fatal outcomes. For delays of around 90 minutes thrombolysis may be the preferred option as assessed by 6-month mortality; there is considerable uncertainty for longer time delays.
Authors: Jesse A Berlin; Jill Santanna; Christopher H Schmid; Lynda A Szczech; Harold I Feldman Journal: Stat Med Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Adnan Kastrati; Julinda Mehilli; Josef Dirschinger; Ullrich Schricke; Jodi Neverve; Jürgen Pache; Stefan Martinoff; Franz Josef Neumann; Stephan Nekolla; Rudolf Blasini; Melchior Seyfarth; Markus Schwaiger; Albert Schömig Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: M R Le May; M Labinaz; R F Davies; J F Marquis; L A Laramée; E R O'Brien; W L Williams; R S Beanlands; G Nichol; L A Higginson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2001-03-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Thomas Aversano; Lynnet T Aversano; Eugene Passamani; Genell L Knatterud; Michael L Terrin; David O Williams; Sandra A Forman Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-04-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Elliott M Antman; Daniel T Anbe; Paul Wayne Armstrong; Eric R Bates; Lee A Green; Mary Hand; Judith S Hochman; Harlan M Krumholz; Frederick G Kushner; Gervasio A Lamas; Charles J Mullany; Joseph P Ornato; David L Pearle; Michael A Sloan; Sidney C Smith; Joseph S Alpert; Jeffrey L Anderson; David P Faxon; Valentin Fuster; Raymond J Gibbons; Gabriel Gregoratos; Jonathan L Halperin; Loren F Hiratzka; Sharon Ann Hunt; Alice K Jacobs Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-08-03 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yolanda Bravo Vergel; Stephen Palmer; Christian Asseburg; Elisabeth Fenwick; Mark de Belder; Keith Abrams; Mark Sculpher Journal: Heart Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Sharon McKinley; Kathleen Dracup; Debra K Moser; Barbara Riegel; Lynn V Doering; Hendrika Meischke; Leanne M Aitken; Tom Buckley; Andrea Marshall; Michele Pelter Journal: Int J Nurs Stud Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 5.837
Authors: Rachel Moxham; Vladimír Džavík; John Cairns; Madhu K Natarajan; Kevin R Bainey; Elie Akl; Michael B Tsang; Shahar Lavi; Warren J Cantor; Mina Madan; Yan Yun Liu; Sanjit S Jolly Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-03-01