Percutaneous coronary intervention or prehospital thrombolysis? What is the preferred treatment in S-T elevation myocardial infarction?

Intern Med J. 2012 Oct:42 Suppl 5:44-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2012.02922.x.

Abstract

There is no situation in medicine where outcome is so utterly dependent on time than in the treatment of patients with S-T elevation myocardial infarction. This life-threatening situation accounts for 30% of acute coronary syndromes. Prompt myocardial reperfusion saves lives, but health services need to be thoroughly organised to achieve this outcome. Unfortunately, a minority of patients in Australia present within 2 h of symptom onset and most patients receive reperfusion 3-4 h after. So health professionals begin at a disadvantage. A novel approach to this problem has been to give thrombolysis at first contact with the patient, before admission to hospital. A French study has assessed this practice against the gold standard treatment for S-T elevation myocardial infarction with some very interesting results. The implications of this study now challenge well-entrenched guidelines for the management of patients with this condition.

MeSH terms

  • Clinical Trials as Topic / methods
  • Emergency Medical Services* / methods
  • Humans
  • Myocardial Infarction / diagnosis
  • Myocardial Infarction / physiopathology
  • Myocardial Infarction / therapy*
  • Percutaneous Coronary Intervention* / methods
  • Thrombolytic Therapy* / methods
  • Treatment Outcome