The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Comparison of Reteplase with Alteplase for Acute Myocardial Infarction
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Reteplase (recombinant plasminogen activator), a mutant of alteplase tissue plasminogen activator, has a longer half-life than its parent molecule and produced superior angiographic results in pilot studies of acute myocardial infarction. In this large clinical trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of these two thrombolytic agents. METHODS: A total of 15,059 patients from 807 hospitals in 20 countries who presented within 6 hours after the onset of symptoms with ST-segment elevation or bundle-branch block were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive reteplase, in two bolus doses or 10 MU each given 30 minutes apart, or an accelerated infusion of alteplase, up to 100 mg infused over a period of 90 minutes. The primary hypothesis was that mortality at 30 days would be significantly lower with reteplase. RESULTS: The mortality rate at 30 days was 7.47 percent for reteplase and 7.24 percent for alteplase (adjusted P=0.54; odds ratio, 1.03; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.18). The 95 percent confidence interval for the absolute difference in mortality rates was -1.1 to 0.66 percent. Stroke occurred in 1.64 percent of patients treated with reteplase and in 1.79 percent of those treated with alteplase (P= 0.50). The respective rates of the combined end point of death or nonfatal, disabling stroke were 7.89 percent and 7.91 percent (P=0.97; odds ratio, 1.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.13). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with an accelerated infusion of alteplase, reteplase, although easier to administer, did not provide any additional survival benefit in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Other results, particularly for the combined end point of death or nonfatal, disabling stroke, were remarkably similar for the two plasminogen activators.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Ibanez, B., James, S., Agewall, S., Antunes, M. J., Bucciarelli-Ducci, C., Bueno, H., Caforio, A. L. P., Crea, F., Goudevenos, J. A., Halvorsen, S., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393 · Cited by 9,728
2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction
O'Gara, P. T., Kushner, F. G., Ascheim, D. D., Casey, D. E., Chung, M. K., de Lemos, J. A., Ettinger, S. M., Fang, J. C., Fesmire, F. M., Franklin, B. A., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.11.019 · Cited by 2,625
Protein Therapeutics: A Summary and Pharmacological Classification
Leader, B., Baca, Q. J., & Golan, D. E. (2008) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd2399 · Cited by 2,161
Prevalence of Conventional Risk Factors in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease
Khot, U. N. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.290.7.898 · Cited by 1,494
Network meta‐analysis for indirect treatment comparisons
Lumley, T. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1201 · Cited by 1,206
Rao, S. V., O’Donoghue, M. L., Ruel, M., Rab, T., Tamis-Holland, J. E., Alexander, J. H., Baber, U., Baker, H., Cohen, M. G., Cruz-Ruiz, M., et al. (2025) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001309 · Cited by 625
Good Enough: A Primer on the Analysis and Interpretation of Noninferiority Trials
Kaul, S., & Diamond, G. A. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-1-200607040-00011 · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1997-10-16
- Volume
- 337
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 1118-1123
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2342256744
- Cited by
- 676
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.98
- 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
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.