Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 193

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Open access
Sutton, Andrew G.C., Campbell, Philip G., Graham, Richard, Price, Dallas J.A., Gray, Janine C., Grech, Ever D., Hall, James A., Harcombe, Alun A., Wright, Robert A., Smith, Roger H., Murphy, Jerry J., Shyam-Sundar, Ananthaiah, Stewart, Michael J., Davies, Adrian, Linker, Nicholas J., de Belder, Mark A.·2004·Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES We sought to compare emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with conservative treatment in patients with failed fibrinolysis complicating ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BACKGROUND Most patients with STEMI receive fibrinolytic therapy and aspirin. The management of failed fibrinolysis is unclear. METHODS A total of 307 patients with STEMI and failed fibrinolysis were randomized to emergency coronary angiography with or without rescue PCI or conservative treatment. RESULTS Thirty-day all-cause mortality was similar in the rescue and conservative groups (9.8% vs. 11%, p = 0.7, risk difference [RD] 1.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.8 to 8.3). The composite secondary end point of death/re-infarction/stroke/subsequent revascularization/heart failure occurred less frequently in the rescue group (37.3% vs. 50%, p = 0.02, RD 12.7%, 95% CI 1.6 to 23.5), driven by less subsequent revascularization (6.5% vs. 20.1%, p < 0.01, RD 13.6%, 95% CI 6.2 to 21.4). Re-infarction and clinical heart failure were less common in the rescue group (7.2% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.3, RD 3.2%, 95% CI -3.3 to 9.9; and 24.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.3, RD 5.7%, 95% CI -4.3 to 15.6, respectively). Strokes and transfusions were more common in the rescue group (4.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.03, RD 3.9%, 95% CI 0.5 to 8.6; and 11.1% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001, RD 9.8%, 95% CI 4.9 to 19.9, respectively). Left ventricular function at 30 days was the same in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Rescue angioplasty did not improve survival by 30 days, but improved event-free survival, almost completely due to a reduction in subsequent revascularization. Rescue angioplasty was associated with more strokes and more transfusions and did not result in preservation of left ventricular systolic function at 30 days.

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 · 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.059

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 193

Metadata

Authors
Sutton, A. G. C., Campbell, P. G., Graham, R., Price, D. J. A., Gray, J. C., Grech, E. D., Hall, J. A., Harcombe, A. A., Wright, R. A., Smith, R. H., Murphy, J. J., Shyam-Sundar, A., Stewart, M. J., Davies, A., Linker, N. J., & de Belder, M. A.
Venue
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
287-296
ISSN
0735-1097 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170504268
Cited by
193
References
0
FWCI
12.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.059
The paper
Sutton, A. G. C., Campbell, P. G., Graham, R., Price, D. J. A., Gray, J. C., Grech, E. D., Hall, J. A., Harcombe, A. A., Wright, R. A., Smith, R. H., Murphy, J. J., Shyam-Sundar, A., Stewart, M. J., Davies, A., Linker, N. J., & de Belder, M. A. (2004). A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.059

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.