Primary coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Intravenous streptokinase and primary coronary angioplasty are both considered to be effective treatment strategies for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Although primary coronary angioplasty is associated with a high patency rate and a well-preserved left ventricular function, it is not known whether it results in a more favorable clinical outcome in randomized comparisons.Clinical data were obtained after a mean follow-up of 18 months (range 6-36 months) after random allocation of 301 patients either to intravenous streptokinase (n = 149) or to primary angioplasty (n = 152). The primary endpoint includes death from cardiac causes and non-fatal reinfarction. The secondary endpoint is a weighted unsatisfactory outcome, one that includes death, stroke, heart failure, shock, ejection fraction lower than 30%, reinfarction, reocclusion and bleeding complications. The need for revascularization procedures was recorded.The relative risk of death from cardiac causes and non-fatal reinfarction in the streptokinase group was 6.1 (95% confidence interval 2.9-12.7) compared with the angioplasty group. There was a lower weighted unsatisfactory outcome score of 0.13 +/- 0.29 in patients randomly assigned to angioplasty compared with 0.34 +/- 0.33 in patients randomly assigned to streptokinase (P < 0.001). Coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass grafting, or both, were performed more often in the streptokinase group, with a relative risk of 2.1 compared with patients randomly assigned to angioplasty (95% confidence interval 1.5-3.2).Clinical outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction after a mean follow-up of 18 months was more favorable in patients randomly assigned to primary angioplasty compared with those receiving intravenous streptokinase.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: