Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of Thrombolysis Followed by Broad Use of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment–Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: Data From the French Registry on Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (FAST-MI)

Danchin, Nicolas, Coste, Pierre, Ferrières, Jean, Steg, Philippe-Gabriel, Cottin, Yves, Blanchard, Didier, Belle, Loïc, Ritz, Bernard, Kirkorian, Gilbert, Angioi, Michael, Sans, Philippe, Charbonnier, Bernard, Eltchaninoff, Hélène, Guéret, Pascal, Khalife, Khalife, Asseman, Philippe, Puel, Jacques, Goldstein, Patrick, Cambou, Jean-Pierre, Simon, Tabassome·2008·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Intravenous thrombolysis remains a widely used treatment for ST-elevation myocardial infarction; however, it carries a higher risk of reinfarction than primary PCI (PPCI). There are few data comparing PPCI with thrombolysis followed by routine angiography and PCI. The purpose of the present study was to assess contemporary outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, with specific emphasis on comparing a pharmacoinvasive strategy (thrombolysis followed by routine angiography) with PPCI. Methods and Results— This nationwide registry in France included 223 centers and 1714 patients over a 1-month period at the end of 2005, with 1-year follow-up. Sixty percent of the patients underwent reperfusion therapy, 33% with PPCI and 29% with intravenous thrombolysis (18% prehospital). At baseline, the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score was similar in thrombolysis and PPCI patients. Time to initiation of reperfusion therapy was significantly shorter in thrombolysis than in PPCI (median 130 versus 300 minutes). After thrombolysis, 96% of patients had coronary angiography, and 84% had subsequent PCI (58% within 24 hours). In-hospital mortality was 4.3% for thrombolysis and 5.0% for PPCI. In patients with thrombolysis, 30-day mortality was 9.2% when PCI was not used and 3.9% when PCI was subsequently performed (4.0% if PCI was performed in the same hospital and 3.3% if performed after transfer to another facility). One-year survival was 94% for thrombolysis and 92% for PPCI ( P =0.31). After propensity score matching, 1-year survival was 94% and 93%, respectively. Conclusions— When used early after the onset of symptoms, a pharmacoinvasive strategy that combines thrombolysis with a liberal use of PCI yields early and 1-year survival rates that are comparable to those of PPCI.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.107.762765

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

Metadata

Authors
Danchin, N., Coste, P., Ferrières, J., Steg, P.-G., Cottin, Y., Blanchard, D., Belle, L., Ritz, B., Kirkorian, G., Angioi, M., Sans, P., Charbonnier, B., Eltchaninoff, H., Guéret, P., Khalife, K., Asseman, P., Puel, J., Goldstein, P., Cambou, J.-P., & Simon, T.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2008-07-15
Volume
118
Issue
3
Pages
268-276
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2077770902
Cited by
325
References
0
FWCI
26.84
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

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.