Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 299

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Long-term Outcome of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Prehospital and In-Hospital Thrombolysis for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Stenestrand, Ulf, Lindbäck, Johan, Wallentin, Lars, RIKS-HIA Registry, for the·2006·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Whether the superior results of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reported in clinical trials in which patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) received reperfusion treatment can be replicated in daily practice has been questioned, especially whether it is superior to prehospital thrombolysis (PHT). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome of different reperfusion strategies in consecutive STEMI patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective observational cohort study of 26 205 consecutive STEMI patients in the Register of Information and Knowledge about Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA) who received reperfusion therapy within 15 hours of symptom onset. The registry includes more than 95% of all Swedish patients, of all ages, who were treated in a coronary intensive care unit between 1999 and 2004. INTERVENTIONS: Seven thousand eighty-four patients underwent primary PCI; 3078, PHT; and 16 043, in-hospital thrombolysis (IHT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, reinfarction, and readmissions as reported in the National Health Registries through December 31, 2005. RESULTS: After adjusting for younger age and less comorbidity, primary PCI was associated with lower mortality than IHT at 30 days (344 [4.9%] vs 1834 [11.4%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.71) and at 1 year (541 [7.6%] vs 2555 [15.9%]; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60-0.76). Also primary PCI correlated with lower mortality than PHT at 30 days (344 [4.9%] vs 234 [7.6%]; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.58-0.85) and 1 year (541 [7.6%] vs 317 [10.3%]; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94). Prehospital thrombolysis predicted a lower mortality than IHT at 30 days (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01) and at 1 year (HR, 0.84; CI 0.74-0.95). Beyond 2 hours' treatment delay, the observed mortality reductions with PHT tended to decrease while the benefits with primary PCI seemed to remain regardless of time delay. Primary PCI was also associated with shorter hospital stay and less reinfarction than either PHT or IHT. CONCLUSIONS: In unselected patients with STEMI, primary PCI, which compared favorably with IHT and PHT, was associated with reduced duration of hospital stay, readmission, reinfarction, and mortality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.296.14.1749

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 299

Metadata

Authors
Stenestrand, U., Lindbäck, J., Wallentin, L., & RIKS-HIA Registry, F. T.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2006-10-11
Volume
296
Issue
14
Pages
1749
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1971240032
Cited by
299
References
0
FWCI
26.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-term Outcome of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Prehospital and In-Hospital Thrombolysis for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.296.14.1749
The paper
Stenestrand, U., Lindbäck, J., Wallentin, L., & RIKS-HIA Registry, F. T. (2006). Long-term Outcome of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Prehospital and In-Hospital Thrombolysis for Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.14.1749

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.