Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 212

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Early routine percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis vs. standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis

Borgia, Francesco, Goodman, Shaun G., Halvorsen, Sigrun, Cantor, Warren J., Piscione, Federico, Le May, Michel R., Fernández-Avilés, Francisco, Sánchez, Pedro L., Dimopoulos, Konstantinos, Scheller, Bruno, Armstrong, Paul W., Di Mario, Carlo·2010·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: Multiple trials in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) compared early routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after successful fibrinolysis vs. standard therapy limiting PCI only to patients without evidence of reperfusion (rescue PCI). These trials suggest that all patients receiving fibrinolysis should receive mechanical revascularization within 24 h from initial hospitalization. However, individual trials could not demonstrate a significant reduction in 'hard' endpoints such as death and reinfarction. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to define the benefits of early PCI after fibrinolysis over standard therapy on clinical and safety endpoints in STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified seven eligible trials, enrolling a total of 2961 patients. No difference was found in the incidence of death at 30 days between the two strategies. Early PCI after successful fibrinolysis reduced the rate of reinfarction (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36-0.82; P = 0.003), the combined endpoint death/reinfarction (OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.49-0.88; P = 0.004) and recurrent ischaemia (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13-0.49; P < 0.001) at 30-day follow-up. These advantages were achieved without a significant increase in major bleeding (OR: 0.93, 96% CI: 0.67-1.34; P = 0.70) or stroke (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.31-1.26; P = 0.21). The benefits of a routine invasive strategy over standard therapy were maintained at 6-12 months, with persistent significant reduction in the endpoints reinfarction (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.40-0.98; P = 0.01) and combined death/reinfarction (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52-0.97; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Early routine PCI after fibrinolysis in STEMI patients significantly reduced reinfarction and recurrent ischaemia at 1 month, with no significant increase in adverse bleeding events compared to standard therapy. Benefits of early PCI persist at 6-12 month follow-up.

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 · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq204

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 212

Metadata

Authors
Borgia, F., Goodman, S. G., Halvorsen, S., Cantor, W. J., Piscione, F., Le May, M. R., Fernández-Avilés, F., Sánchez, P. L., Dimopoulos, K., Scheller, B., Armstrong, P. W., & Di Mario, C.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2010-07-02
Volume
31
Issue
17
Pages
2156-2169
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2128200133
Cited by
212
References
2
FWCI
3.51
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: Early routine percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis vs. standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq204
The paper
Borgia, F., Goodman, S. G., Halvorsen, S., Cantor, W. J., Piscione, F., Le May, M. R., Fernández-Avilés, F., Sánchez, P. L., Dimopoulos, K., Scheller, B., Armstrong, P. W., & Di Mario, C. (2010). Early routine percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis vs. standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq204

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.