Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15071735›Full record

ReviewDer Anaesthesist2004

[Thrombolysis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Current role in the light of recent studies].

H-R Arntz, U Zeymer, P Schwimmbeck

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Anaesthesist, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 68% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

H-R ArntzMed. Klinik II, Kardiologie/Pulmologie, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin. hans-richard.arntz@medizin.fu-berlin.de
U Zeymer
P Schwimmbeck
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEFranklin University · USKlinikum Ludwigshafen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As acute percutaneous interventions are only performed in about 20% of patients in Germany, thrombolysis will continue to play an essential role in the treatment of ST-elevation infarction. There is no real alternative to thrombolysis in hospitals without catheter facilities or with long transport times, especially for patients with a short duration of symptoms. Prehospital thrombolysis is widely underused despite its proven efficacy and safety. This is especially the case with respect to mortality of patients with symptoms <3 h, where thrombolysis seems to be at least as effective as or even superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with respect to mortality (most probably by avoiding cardiogenic shock). "Facilitated PCI", i.e. thrombolysis +/-Gp IIb/IIIa receptor blocker and consecutive routine PCI is attractive and may be an option for the future. However, the logistic burden and problems of availability of EMS have not yet been investigated. Also, the principal value of "rescue PCI"still needs to be clarified. Moreover, defining simple clinical parameters which help to detect ineffective thrombolysis as well as time windows for detection and consecutive rescue intervention are urgent tasks for the near future. In order to guarantee an optimized and individualized therapy for the patient with acute myocardial infarction, peripheral hospitals, intervention centres and emergency medical services should set up networks, which consider the local resources, time lines and the specific conditions of the patient.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAngioplasty, Balloon, CoronaryElectrocardiographyEmergency Medical ServicesHumansMyocardial InfarctionThrombolytic Therapy

Identifiers

PMID15071735
OpenAlexW2394549672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.