Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow References
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Disclaimer
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Widimsky, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Widimsky, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


Pharmacological versus catheter-based reperfusion: What is present state of the art?

P. Widimsky1

Cardiocentre, Královské Vinohrady University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic

1 Correspondence: Professor Petr Widimsky, MD, DrSc, FESC, Cardiocentre, University Hospital Vinohrady, Srobárova 50, CZ-100 34 Prague, Czech Republic

Abstract

The aim of any reperfusion therapy is quick and complete restoration of normal (TIMI-grade 3) coronary flow. At least 12 randomized studies have shown, that direct (primary) coronary angioplasty is more effective than any pharmacological approach and should be the preferred reperfusion therapy whenever available with no more than 30–60 min delay (compared with thrombolysis). Immediate knowledge of the coronary anatomy with the possibility of performing coronary bypass surgery in selected patients adds substantially to the overall benefits of the primary angioplasty strategy. Stent implantation markedly decreases the restenosis rate after primary angioplasty. The benefits of primary angioplasty are sustained in long-term follow-up. The extent of benefit from primary angioplasty is dependent on the time delay and on the operator experience, but it appears that even low-volume operators achieve similar or slightly better results than the most effective thrombolytic regimens. Thrombolysis is preferred therapy only for patients with timely access to primary angioplasty, especially when they are treated within initial 4 h of symptoms. The role of GPIIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors in conjunction with primary angioplasty or stenting is promising, but additional studies should confirm whether it is useful routinely for all patients or selectively only for the ‘extreme hypercoagulation’ situation and/or for ‘suboptimal angioplasty/stent result’.

Key Words: Acute myocardial infarction • reperfusion therapy • primary angioplasty • rescue angioplasty • stent • thrombolysis


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JAMAHome page
U. Stenestrand, J. Lindback, L. Wallentin, and for the RIKS-HIA Registry
Long-term outcome of primary percutaneous coronary intervention vs prehospital and in-hospital thrombolysis for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
JAMA, October 11, 2006; 296(14): 1749 - 1756.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.