In the article by Sinnaeve and Van de Werf, “Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Not Always the Best Reperfusion Strategy?,” which published in the April 22, 2014 issue of the journal (Circulation. 2014;129:1623–1625), an error was made.
In the fifth paragraph, the following sentence appears: “In this STREAM-like cohort, 5-year survival was significantly lower after fibrinolysis compared with primary PCI.”
This sentence should read: “In this STREAM-like cohort, 5-year survival was significantly better after fibrinolysis compared with primary PCI.”
The online version of the article has been corrected. The authors regret the error.
- © 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.