This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Van de Werf, F. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Van de Werf, F. J. Related Collections Cardiovascular Pharmacology Fibrinolysis Catheter-based coronary and valvular interventions: other Acute myocardial infarction Related Article

(Circulation. 2006;114:2002-2003.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Fine-Tuning the Selection of a Reperfusion Strategy

Frans J. Van de Werf, MD, PhD

From the Department of Cardiology, Gasthuisberg University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium.

Correspondence to Dr Frans Van de Werf, Department of Cardiology, Gasthuisberg University Hospital, U.Z. Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, Leuven B-3000, Belgium. E-mail frans.vandewerf@uz.kuleuven.ac.be

Key Words: Editorials • myocardial infarction • reperfusion

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a better reperfusion therapy for ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction than in-hospital fibrinolytic therapy when it is performed soon after the onset of symptoms by an experienced team. Both the American and the European guidelines for the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction recommend that the procedure should be done within 90 minutes of presentation.^1,2 Although delays in the delivery of both fibrinolytic therapy and primary PCI are associated with increased mortality rates, an extra (unavoidable) delay of up to 60 minutes is considered to be acceptable for primary PCI because this reperfusion treatment is associated with higher patency rates of the infarct vessel and better survival when compared with fibrinolytic therapy. This "PCI-related delay" is usually presented as the "door-to-balloon" time minus the "door-to-needle" time. The guidelines recommend a "door-to-needle" time of 30 minutes and, as mentioned above, the recommended "door-to-balloon" time is 90 minutes, resulting in an acceptable "PCI-related delay" of 60 minutes. A recent reanalysis by the Primary Coronary Angioplasty versus Thrombolysis (PCAT)-2 Investigators of the delay times in 22 randomized studies that have compared primary PCI with in-hospital fibrinolysis suggests that a survival benefit of primary PCI could still be present with PCI-related delays of up to 2 hours.³

Article p 2019

From the aforementioned studies, one could conclude that the selection of a reperfusion strategy is predominantly determined by time delays, namely the presentation delay (should be less than 12 hours) and the PCI-related delay (should be less . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article:

Issue Highlights
Circulation 2006 114: 2001. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Danchin, E. Durand, and D. Blanchard Pre-hospital thrombolysis in perspective Eur. Heart J., December 1, 2008; 29(23): 2835 - 2842. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. S. Kassab, J. A. Navia, K. March, and J. S. Choy Coronary venous retroperfusion: an old concept, a new approach J Appl Physiol, May 1, 2008; 104(5): 1266 - 1272. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. K. Nallamothu, E. H. Bradley, and H. M. Krumholz Time to Treatment in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention N. Engl. J. Med., October 18, 2007; 357(16): 1631 - 1638. [Full Text] [PDF]