Literature DB >> 17636680

WITHDRAWN: Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction.

M Cucherat1, E Bonnefoy, G Tremeau.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intravenous thrombolytic therapy is the standard care for patients with acute myocardial infarction, based upon its widespread availability and ability to reduce patient mortality well demonstrated in randomised trials. Despite its proven efficacy, thrombolytic therapy has limitations. Many patients are ineligible for treatment with thrombolytics. Of those given thrombolytic therapy, 10 to 15 percent have persistent occlusion or reocclusion of the infarct-related artery. Consequently, primary angioplasty (primary PTCA) has been advocated as a better treatment of myocardial infarction.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether primary coronary angioplasty is superior to thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic search of The Cochrane Library (1998; Issue 2). MEDLINE (to January 1998); references from reviews, trials and previously published meta-analyses; and experts. Date of most recent searches January 1998. SELECTION CRITERIA: All unconfounded, randomised controlled trials comparing primary angioplasty against intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two independent reviewers abstracted data on morbidity and mortality and trial characteristics. The following outcomes were assessed: total mortality at the end of the study, reinfarction, stroke of any type, composite endpoint of death and reinfarction, recurrent ischemia, severe bleeding and coronary artery bypass grafting. MAIN
RESULTS: Ten trials including 2573 subjects were identified. Compared to thrombolytic therapy, primary angioplasty was associated with a significant reduction in short-term mortality at the end of the studies (relative reduction in risk RRR = 32% 95%CI = 5%;50%). Similar reductions were observed for the rate of reinfarction (RRR = 52%, 95%CI = 30%;67%), recurrent ischemia (RRR = 54%; 95%CI = 39%,66%) and for the combined criteria death or reinfarction (RRR = 46%; 95%CI=30%;58%). The frequency of strokes of any cause was significantly decreased by 66% (95%CI=28%;84%). No significant difference was observed for the incidence of major bleeding (relative risk RR =1.18, 95%CI = 0.73;1.90) but the confidence interval was large. The superiority of the primary angioplasty over thrombolysis in terms of the composite endpoint (mortality and reinfarction) was less with accelerated t-PA (RR=0.70, 95%CI=0.51;0.97) than with streptokinase (RR=0.30, 95%CI=0.17;0.53). The biggest and most recent trial, Gusto 2B (GUSTO-2B 97), which involved general as well as highly specialised centres, obtained less favorable results. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that angioplasty provides a short-term clinical advantage over thrombolysis which may not be sustained. Primary angioplasty when available promptly at experienced centres, may be considered the preferred strategy for myocardial reperfusion. In most situations, however, optimal thrombolytic therapy should still be regarded as an excellent reperfusion strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17636680      PMCID: PMC6413765          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001560.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  41 in total

1.  [Infarction: thrombolysis or angioplasty? That's the question...].

Authors:  F Jan
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  2000-02-05       Impact factor: 1.228

2.  [Primary angioplasty is superior to thrombolytic therapy in also reducing long-term clinical events after acute myocardial infarct].

Authors:  L Bolognese
Journal:  Ital Heart J Suppl       Date:  2000-03

3.  Primary angioplasty versus systemic thrombolysis in anterior myocardial infarction.

Authors:  E García; J Elízaga; N Pérez-Castellano; J A Serrano; J Soriano; M Abeytua; J Botas; R Rubio; E López de Sá; J L López-Sendón; J L Delcán
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Coronary stenting plus platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with tissue plasminogen activator in acute myocardial infarction. Stent versus Thrombolysis for Occluded Coronary Arteries in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Study Investigators.

Authors:  A Schömig; A Kastrati; J Dirschinger; J Mehilli; U Schricke; J Pache; S Martinoff; F J Neumann; M Schwaiger
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-08-10       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  F Zijlstra; J C Hoorntje; M J de Boer; S Reiffers; K Miedema; J P Ottervanger; A W van 't Hof; H Suryapranata
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-11-04       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  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.

Authors:  F Vermeer; A J Oude Ophuis; E J vd Berg; L G Brunninkhuis; C J Werter; A G Boehmer; A H Lousberg; W R Dassen; F W Bär
Journal:  Heart       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.994

7.  Stenting versus thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction trial (STAT).

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

8.  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.

Authors:  P Widimský; L Groch; M Zelízko; M Aschermann; F Bednár; H Suryapranata
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction--etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK?

Authors:  J S Hochman; C E Buller; L A Sleeper; J Boland; V Dzavik; T A Sanborn; E Godfrey; H D White; J Lim; T LeJemtel
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 24.094

10.  One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock.

Authors:  J S Hochman; L A Sleeper; H D White; V Dzavik; S C Wong; V Menon; J G Webb; R Steingart; M H Picard; M A Menegus; J Boland; T Sanborn; C E Buller; S Modur; R Forman; P Desvigne-Nickens; A K Jacobs; J N Slater; T H LeJemtel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-01-10       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.