Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 39, Issue 3 , Pages 299-301 , March 2002

Angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction

References 

  1. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists FTT Collaborative Group . Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1,000 patients. Lancet. 1994;343:311–322
  2. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, White HD, et al.  One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA. 2001;285:190–192
  3. Cucherat M, Bonnefoy E, Tremeau G. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Systematic Review. In: The Cochrane Library. Issue 1. Oxford, United Kingdom: Update Software, Inc; 2001;
  4. The GUSTO IIb Investigators . A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1621–1628
  5. Lange RA, Hillis LD. Should thrombolysis or primary angioplasty be the treatment of choice for acute myocardial infarction?. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:1311–1317

☆ This systematic review abstract is taken from Cucherat M, Bonnefoy E, Tremeau G. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library. Issue 1. Oxford, United Kingdom: Update Software; 2001.

☆☆ Reprints not available from the commentator. Address for correspondence: E. John Gallagher, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY 10467; E-mail: jgallagh@montefiore.org

PII: S0196-0644(02)51975-2

doi: 10.1067/mem.2002.122206

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 39, Issue 3 , Pages 299-301 , March 2002

Article Tools