Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 485

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Rescue Angioplasty after Failed Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Open access
Gershlick, Anthony H., Stephens-Lloyd, Amanda, Hughes, Sarah, Abrams, Keith R., Stevens, Suzanne E., Uren, Neal G., de Belder, Adam, Davis, John, Pitt, Michael, Banning, Adrian, Baumbach, Andreas, Shiu, Man Fai, Schofield, Peter, Dawkins, Keith D., Henderson, Robert A., Oldroyd, Keith G., Wilcox, Robert·2005·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The appropriate treatment for patients in whom reperfusion fails to occur after thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction remains unclear. There are few data comparing emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (rescue PCI) with conservative care in such patients, and none comparing rescue PCI with repeated thrombolysis. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter trial in the United Kingdom involving 427 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in whom reperfusion failed to occur (less than 50 percent ST-segment resolution) within 90 minutes after thrombolytic treatment. The patients were randomly assigned to repeated thrombolysis (142 patients), conservative treatment (141 patients), or rescue PCI (144 patients). The primary end point was a composite of death, reinfarction, stroke, or severe heart failure within six months. RESULTS: The rate of event-free survival among patients treated with rescue PCI was 84.6 percent, as compared with 70.1 percent among those receiving conservative therapy and 68.7 percent among those undergoing repeated thrombolysis (overall P=0.004). The adjusted hazard ratio for the occurrence of the primary end point for repeated thrombolysis versus conservative therapy was 1.09 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.67; P=0.69), as compared with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.43 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.26 to 0.72; P=0.001) for rescue PCI versus repeated thrombolysis and 0.47 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.28 to 0.79; P=0.004) for rescue PCI versus conservative therapy. There were no significant differences in mortality from all causes. Nonfatal bleeding, mostly at the sheath-insertion site, was more common with rescue PCI. At six months, 86.2 percent of the rescue-PCI group were free from revascularization, as compared with 77.6 percent of the conservative-therapy group and 74.4 percent of the repeated-thrombolysis group (overall P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Event-free survival after failed thrombolytic therapy was significantly higher with rescue PCI than with repeated thrombolysis or conservative treatment. Rescue PCI should be considered for patients in whom reperfusion fails to occur after thrombolytic therapy.

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa050849

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 485

Metadata

Authors
Gershlick, A. H., Stephens-Lloyd, A., Hughes, S., Abrams, K. R., Stevens, S. E., Uren, N. G., de Belder, A., Davis, J., Pitt, M., Banning, A., Baumbach, A., Shiu, M. F., Schofield, P., Dawkins, K. D., Henderson, R. A., Oldroyd, K. G., & Wilcox, R.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2005-12-29
Volume
353
Issue
26
Pages
2758-2768
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2011047627
Cited by
485
References
0
FWCI
28.85
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: Rescue Angioplasty after Failed Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa050849
The paper
Gershlick, A. H., Stephens-Lloyd, A., Hughes, S., Abrams, K. R., Stevens, S. E., Uren, N. G., de Belder, A., Davis, J., Pitt, M., Banning, A., Baumbach, A., Shiu, M. F., Schofield, P., Dawkins, K. D., Henderson, R. A., Oldroyd, K. G., & Wilcox, R. (2005). Rescue Angioplasty after Failed Thrombolytic Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa050849

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.