ReviewDer Anaesthesist2004
[Thrombolysis in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Current role in the light of recent studies].
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Paradigms in treatment of myocardial infarction].Der Anaesthesist · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.