Hartwell, D. (Debbie L.), Colquitt, J. L. (Jill L.), Loveman, E., Clegg, A. J., Brodin, H. (Håkan), Waugh, Norman, Royle, Pamela, Davidson, Peter, Vale, L. (Luke) and MacKenzie, L.. (2005) Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction : systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assessment, Vol.9 (No.17). ISSN 1366-5278

Preview	Text WRAP_Waugh_immedPCI.pdf - Published Version Download (496Kb) | Preview
Preview	Text (Cover sheet) WRAP_waugh10_Coversheet_FinalVersion.pdf Download (168Kb) | Preview

Abstract

Background The blockage of a coronary artery (coronary thrombosis) can lead to a heart attack (acute myocardial infarction). There are several ways of trying to overcome this blockage. The methods include drug treatment to dissolve the clot (thrombolysis) and physical intervention, either by passing a catheter into the affected artery [angioplasty or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)], or bypassing the blocked section by cardiac surgery [coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)]. Thrombolysis can be given in the community before the patient is sent to hospital, or delayed until after admission. Prehospital thrombolysis is not common in the UK. Immediate angioplasty is not routinely available in the UK at present; it is much more common in the USA. Objectives To review the clinical evidence comparing immediate angioplasty with thrombolysis, and to consider whether it would be cost-effective. Methods This report was based on a systematic review of the evidence of clinical effectiveness and an economic analysis of cost-effectiveness based on the clinical review and on cost data from published sources and de novo data collection. Data sources The search strategy searched six electronic databases (including Medline, Cochrane Library and EMBASE), with English-language limits, for the periods up to December 2002. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed for relevant studies and experts contacted for advice and peer review, and to identify additional published and unpublished references. Study selection For clinical effectiveness, a comprehensive review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was used for efficacy, and a selection of observational studies such as case series or audit data for effectiveness safety in routine practice. RCTs of thrombolysis were used to assess the relative value of prehospital and hospital thrombolysis. Observational studies were used to assess the representativeness of patients in the RCTs, and to determine whether different groups have different capacity to benefit. They were used to assess the implications of wider diffusion of the technology away from major centres. Data extraction Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer, with any disagreements resolved through discussion. The quality of systematic reviews, RCTs, controlled clinical trials and economic studies was assessed using criteria recommended by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York). Study synthesis Clinical effectiveness was synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of results of all included studies and a meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of absolute clinical benefit. Consideration was given to the effect of the growing use of stents. The economic modelling adopted an NHS perspective to develop a decision-analytical model of cost-effectiveness focusing on opportunity costs over the short term (6 months). Results and conclusion Number and quality of studies, and summary of benefits There were several good-quality systematic reviews, including a Cochrane review, as well as an individual patient meta-analysis and a number of recent trials not included in the reviews. The results were consistent in showing an advantage of immediate angioplasty over hospital thrombolysis. The updated meta-analysis showed that mortality is reduced by about one-third, from 7.6% to 4.9% in the first 6 months, and by about the same in studies of up to 24 months. Reinfarction is reduced by over half, from 7.6% to 3.1%. Stroke is reduced by about two-thirds, from 2.3% with thrombolysis to 0.7% with PCI, with the difference being due to haemorrhagic stroke. The need for CABG is reduced by about one-third, from 13.2% to 8.4%. Caution is needed in interpreting the older trials, as changes such as an increase in stenting and the use of the glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitors may improve the results of PCI. There is little evidence comparing prehospital thrombolysis with immediate PCI. One good quality study from France showed that prehospital thrombolysis with PCI in those in whom thrombolysis failed was as good as universal PCI. Research on thrombolysis followed by PCI, known as facilitated PCI, is underway, but results are not yet available. Further caveats are needed. Trials may be done in select centres and results may not be as good in lower volume centres, or out of normal working hours. In addition, much of the marginal mortality benefit of PCI over hospital thrombolysis may be lost if door-to-balloon time were more than 1 hour longer than door-to-needle time. Conversely, within the initial 6 hours, the later patients present, the greater the relative advantage of PCI. Cost-effectiveness If both interventions were routinely available, the economic analysis favours PCI, given the assumptions of the model. Results suggest that PCI is more cost-effective than thrombolysis, providing additional benefits in health status at some extra cost and an incremental cost per unit change in health status under the £30,000 threshold in most instances. In the longer term, the cost difference is expected to be reduced because of higher recurrence and reintervention rates among those who had thrombolysis. The model is not particularly sensitive to variations in probabilities from the clinical effectiveness analysis. However, very few units in England could offer a routine immediate PCI service at present, and there would be considerable resource implications of setting up such services. Without a detailed survey of existing provision, it is not possible to quantify the implications, but they include both capital and revenue: an increase in catheter laboratory provision and running costs. The greatest problem would be staffing, and that would take some years to resolve. A gradual incrementalist approach based on clinical networks, with transfer to centres able to offer PCI, could be used. In rural areas, one option could be to promote an increase in prehospital thrombolysis, with PCI for thrombolysis failures. Need for further research There is a need for economic data on the long-term consequences of the treatment, the quality of life of patients after treatment and the effects of PCI following thrombolysis failure.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > RC Internal medicine
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Myocardial infarction -- Treatment, Angioplasty -- Effectiveness, Thrombolytic therapy -- Effectiveness
Journal or Publication Title:	Health Technology Assessment
Publisher:	NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme
ISSN:	1366-5278
Date:	2005
Volume:	Vol.9
Number:	No.17
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Funder:	NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme (Great Britain)
References:	1. Department of Health National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. Modern standards and service models. London: Department of Health; 2000. 2. Robinson M, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Jones L, Riemsma R, Palmer S, et al. A systematic review update of the clinical effectiveness and costeffectiveness of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists. Health Technol Assess 2002;6(25). 3. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 47. London: NICE; 2002. 4. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of metaanalyses of randomised controlled trials and recommendations of clinical experts. JAMA 1992;268:240–8. 5. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of drugs for early thrombolysis in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 52. London: NICE; 2002. 6. Boland A, Dundar Y, Bagust A, Haycox A, Hill R, Mujica Mota R, et al. Early thrombolysis for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7(15). 7. Dyer O. One in four hospitals is more than 25% short of thrombolysis target [letter]. BMJ 2002; 325:1190. 8. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet 1988; ii:349–60. 9. Van De Werf F, Ardissino D, Betriu A, Cokkinos DV, Falk E, Fox KAA, et al. Management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. The Task Force on the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2003; 24:28–66. 10. Morrison LJ, Verbeek PR, McDonald AC, Sawadsky BV, Cook DJ. Mortality and prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. A meta-analysis. JAMA 2000;283:2686–92. 11. Rawles J, Sinclair C, Jennings K, Ritchie L, Waugh N. Audit of prehospital thrombolysis by general practitioners in peripheral practices in Grampian. Heart 1998;80:231–4. 12. Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 1996;335:217–25. 13. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of stents and drug eluting stents for the prevention of restenosis, compared to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). 2003. URL: http://www.ncchta.org/ project.asp?PjtId=1332. 14. Meads C, Cummins C, Jolly K, Stevens A, Burls A, Hyde C. Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(23). 15. Anon. Technological change around the world: evidence from heart attack care. Health Aff 2001; 20:25–41. 16. Joint Working Group on Coronary Angioplasty of the British Cardiac Society and aBCIS. Coronary angioplasty: guidelines for good practice and training. Heart 2000;83:224–35. 17. Hospital Episode Statistics. URL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/hes/index.html. 18. Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project. How hospitals manage heart attacks. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2002. 19. British Cardiovascular Intervention Society. British Cardiovascular Intervention Society Audit 2002. URL: http://www.bcis.org.uk/audit/oct02.html. 20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance for manufacturers and sponsors. Technology Appraisals Process Series No. 5. London: NICE; 2002. 21. Cucherat M, Bonnefoy E, Tremeau G. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Library 2002. 22. Michels KB, Yusuf S. Does PTCA in acute myocardial infarction affect mortality and reinfarction rates? A quantitative overview (metaanalysis) of the randomised clinical trials. Circulation 1995;91:476–85. 23. Weaver WD, Simes RJ, Betriu A, Grines CL, Zijlstra F, Garcia E, et al. Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty and intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review. JAMA 1997;278:2093–8. 24. Zijlstra F, Patel A, Jones M, Grines CL, Ellis S, Garcia E, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcome of patients with early (<2 h), intermediate (2–4 h) and late (>4 h) presentation treated by primary coronary angioplasty or thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2002;23:550–7. 25. Gibbons RJ, Holmes DR, Reeder GS, Bailey KR, Hopfenspirger MR, Gersh BJ. Mayo Coronary Care Unit and Catheterization Laboratory Groups. Immediate angioplasty compared with the administration of a thrombolytic agent followed by conservative treatment for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328:685–91. 26. Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO IIb) Angioplasty Substudy Investigators. A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1997; 336:1621–8. 27. Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, Rothbaum D, Stone GW, O’Keefe J, et al. Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study Group. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328:673–9. 28. Ribeiro EE, Silva LA, Carneiro R, D’Oliveira LG, Gasquez A, Amino JG, et al. Randomized trial of direct coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:376–80. 29. Zijlstra F, Beukema WP, van’t Hof AW, Liem A, Reiffers S, Hoorntje JC, et al. Randomized comparison of primary coronary angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy in low risk patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:908–12. 30. de Boer MJ, Hoorntje JC, Ottervanger JP, Reiffers S, Suryapranata H, Zijlstra F. Immediate coronary angioplasty versus intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction: left ventricular ejection fraction, hospital mortality and reinfarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994;23:1004–8. 31. Grinfeld L, Berrocal D, Belardi J, Spinetta A, Matas CR, Oberti P, et al. Fibrinolytic vs primary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (FAP): A randomized trial in a community hospital in Argentina. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:222A. 32. DeWood MA, Fisher MJ, for the Spokane Heart Research Group. Direct PTCA versus intravenous r-tPA in acute myocardial infarction: preliminary results from a prospective randomized trial. Circulation 1989;80:II-418. 33. Garcia EL. Primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis with tPA in anterior myocardial infarction: results from a single center trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:389A. 34. Ribichini F, Steffenino G, Dellavalle A, Meinardi F, Vado A, Feola M, et al. Primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis in inferior acute myocardial infarction with anterior ST-segment depression, a single-center randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:221A. 35. Zijlstra F, de Boer MJ, Hoorntje JC, Reiffers S, Reiber JH, Suryapranata H. A comparison of immediate coronary angioplasty with intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;328:680–4. 36. Eligaza J, Garcia EJ, Delcan JL, Garcia-Robles JA, Bueno H, Soriano J, et al. Primary coronary angioplasty versus systemic thrombolysis in acute anterior myocardial infarction: in-hospital results from a prospective randomised trial. Circulation 1993;88:I-411. 37. O’Neill WW, Timmis GC, Bourdillon PD, Lai P, Gangadharan V, Walton J, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of intracoronary streptokinase versus coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. New Engl J Med 1986; 314:812–18. 38. Akhras F, Ousa A, Swann G. Primary coronary angioplasty or intravenous thrombolysis for patients with acute myocardial infarction? Acute and late follow-up results in a new cardiac unit. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:235-6A. 39. Wiseth R, Gundersen T, Halvorsen S, Nordrehaug JE, Steigen T, Myhre KI. PCI ved akutt hjerteinfarkt. SMM-rapport No. 5/2002. SINTEF; 2002. 40. Ribichini F, Steffenino G, Dellavalle A, Ferrero V, Vado A, Feola M, et al. Comparison of thrombolytic therapy and primary coronary angioplasty with liberal stenting for inferior myocardial infarction with precordial ST-segment depression: immediate and long-term results of a randomized study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32:1687–94. 41. Garcia E, Elizaga J, Perez-Castellano N, Serrano JA, Soriano J, Abeytua M, et al. Primary angioplasty versus systemic thrombolysis in anterior myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;33:605–11. 42. Aversano T, Aversano LT, Passamani E, Knatterud GL, Terrin ML, Williams DO, et al. Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;287:1943–51. 43. Danchin N, Vaur L, Genes N, Etienne S, Angioi M, Ferrieres J, et al. Treatment of acute myocardial infarction by primary coronary angioplasty or intravenous thrombolysis in the ‘real world’: oneyear results from a nationwide French survey. Circulation 1999;99:2639–44. 44. de Boer MJ, Ottervanger JP, van’t Hof AWJ, Hoorntje JCA, Suryapranata H, Zijlstra F. Reperfusion therapy in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction: a randomized comparison of primary angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1723–8. 45. Grines CL, Westerhausen DRJ, Grines LL, Hanlon JT, Logemann TL, Niemela M, et al. A randomized trial of transfer for primary angioplasty versus on-site thrombolysis in patients with high-risk myocardial infarction: the Air Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1713–19. 46. Widimsky P, Groch L, Zelizko M, Aschermann M, Bednar F, Suryapranata H. Multicentre randomized trial comparing transport to primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis vs combined strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting to a community hospital without a catheterization laboratory. The PRAGUE study. Eur Heart J 2000;21:823–31. 47. Andersen H.R. Danish Trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DANAMI) 2. Presented at American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions, Atlanta, GA, USA; 2002. 48. DeWood M. Direct PTCA vs intravenous t-PA in acute myocardial infarction: results from a prospective randomized trial. Proceedings from the Thrombolysis and Interventional Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction Symposium VI. Washington DC: George Washington University, 1990. pp. 28–9. 49. Boersma E, Maas AC, Simons ML. Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet 1996;348:771–5. 50. Zahn R, Schiele R, Schneider S, Gitt AK, Weinbergen H, Seidl K, et al. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: can we define subgroups of patients benefiting most from primary angioplasty? Results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry and the Myocardial Infarction Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:1827–35. 51. Silva JA, Ramee SR, White CJ, Collins TJ, Jenkins JS, Nunez E, et al. Primary stenting in acute myocardial infarction: influence of diabetes mellitus in angiographic results and clinical outcome. Am Heart J 1999;138:446–55. 52. Sakai K, Nakagawa Y, Kimura T, Doi T, Yokoi H, Iwabuchi M, et al. Comparison of results of coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in patients �75 years of age versus patients <75 years of age. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89:797–800. 53. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, Sanborn TA, White HD, Talley JD, et al. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should we emergently revascularize occluded coronaries for cardiogenic shock. New Engl J Med 1999; 341:625–34. 54. Spiecker M, Windeler J, Vermeer F, Michels R, Seabra-Gomes R, vom-Dahl J, et al. Thrombolysis with saruplase versus streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction: five-year results of the PRIMI trial. Am Heart J 1999;138:518–24. 55. Baur LH, Schipperheyn JJ, van der Wall EE, van der Velde EA, Schalij MJ, Eck-Smit BL, et al. Beneficial effect of enalapril on left ventricular remodelling in patients with a severe residual stenosis after acute anterior wall infarction. Eur Heart J 1997;18:1313–21. 56. Tiefenbrunn AJ, Chandra NC, French WJ, Gore JM, Rogers WJ. Clinical experience with primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty compared with alteplase (recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator) in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a report from the Second National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI-2). J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31:1240–5. 57. Zahn R, Koch A, Rustige J, Schiele R, Wirtzfeld A, Neuhaus KL, et al. Primary angioplasty versus thrombolysis in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. ALKK Study Group. Am J Cardiol 1997;79:264–9. 58. Soljak M. Volume of procedures and outcome of treatment [editorial]. BMJ 2002;325:787–8. 59. Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Arani DT, Ryan TJ, Walford G, McCallister BD. Short- and long-term mortality for patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:1194–201. 60. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1128–37. 61. Begg CB, Riedel ER, Bach PB, Kattan MW, Schrag D, Warren JL. Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1138–44. 62. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Concentration and choice in the provision of hospital services. CRD Report 8. York: York University, 1997. 63. Hlatky MA, Dudley RA. Operator volume and clinical outcomes of primary coronary angioplasty for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 2001;104:2155–7. 64. Canto JG, Every NR, Magid DJ, Rogers WJ, Malmgren JA, Frederick PD. The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1573–80. 65. Vakili BA, Kaplan R, Brown DL. Volume-outcome relation for physicians and hospitals performing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in New York state. Circulation 2001;104:2171–6. 66. Maynard C, Every NR, Chapko MK, Ritchie JL. Outcomes of coronary angioplasty procedures performed in rural hospitals. Am J Med 2000; 108:710–13. 67. Jollis JG, Romano PS. Volume–outcome relationship in acute myocardial infarction: the balloon and the needle. JAMA 2000;284:3169–71. 68. Wright SM, Daley J, Peterson ED, Thibault GE. Outcomes of acute myocardial infarction in the Department of Veterans Affairs: does regionalization of health care work? Med Care 1997;35:128–41. 69. Marrugat J, Sanz G, Masia R, Valle V, Molina L, Cardona M, et al. RESCATE Investigators. Recursos Empleados en el Sindrome Coronario Agudo y Tiempos de Espera. Six-month outcome in patients with myocardial infarction initially admitted to tertiary and nontertiary hospitals. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1187–92. 70. Every NR, Maynard C, Schulman K, Ritchie JL. The association between institutional primary angioplasty procedure volume and outcome in elderly Americans. Journal of Invasive Cardiology 2000;12:303–8. 71. Thiemann DR, Coresh J, Oetgen WJ, Powe NR. The association between hospital volume and survival after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1640–8. 72. Rogers WJ, Canto JG, Barron HV, Boscarino JA, Shoultz DA, Every NR. Treatment and outcome of myocardial infarction in hospitals with and without invasive capability. Investigators in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:371–9. 73. Magid DJ, Calonge BN, Rumsfeld JS, Canto JG, Frederick PD, Every NR, et al. Relation between hospital primary angioplasty volume and mortality for patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty versus thrombolytic therapy. JAMA 2000;284:3131–8. 74. Widimsky P, Budesinsky T, Vorac D, Groch L, Zelizko M, Aschermann M, et al. Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Final results of the randomized national multicentre trial – PRAGUE-2. Eur Heart J 2003;24:94–104. 75. Zijlstra F. Angioplasty vs thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative overview of the effects of interhospital transportation [editorial]. Eur Heart J 2003;24:21–3. 76. Wilson SH, Bell MR, Rihal CS, Bailey KR, Holmes D-RJ, Berger PB. Infarct artery reocclusion after primary angioplasty, stent placement, and thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 2001; 141:704–10. 77. Maillard L, Hamon M, Khalife K, Steg PG, Beygui F, Guermonprez JL, et al. STENTIM-2 Investigators. A comparison of systematic stenting and conventional balloon angioplasty during primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:1729–36. 78. Cafri C, Denktas AE, Crystal E, Ilia R, Battler A. Contribution of stenting to the results of rescue PTCA. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 1999;47:411–14. 79. Bar F, Vainer J, Stevenhagen J, Neven K, Aalbregt R, Ophuis TO, et al. Ten-year experience with early angioplasty in 759 patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36:51–8. 80. Juliard JM, Himbert D, Cristofini P, Desportes JC, Magne M, Golmard JL, et al. A matched comparison of the combination of prehospital thrombolysis and standby rescue angioplasty with primary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 1999;83:305–10. 81. Oude-Ophuis TJ, Bar FW, Vermeer F, Krijne R, Jansen W, de Swart H, et al. Early referral for intentional rescue PTCA after initiation of thrombolytic therapy in patients admitted to a community hospital because of a large acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 1999; 137:846–53. 82. Bonnefoy E, Lapostolle F, Leizorovicz A, Steg G, McFadden EP, Dubien PY, et al. Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study. Lancet 2002;360:825–9. 83. Kent DM, Lau J, Selker HP. Balancing the benefits of primary angioplasty against the benefits of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: the importance of timing. Effective Clinical Practice 2001;4:214–20. 84. Nallamothu B, Bates E. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: is timing (almost) everything? Am J Cardiol 2003;92:824–6. 85. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 2003;361:13–20. 86. Garot P, Juliard JM, Benamer H, Steg PG. Are the results of primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction different during the ‘off ’ hours? Am J Cardiol 1997;79:1527–9. 87. Caspi A, Gottlieb S, Behar S. Delayed percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol 1998;63:199–204. 88. Vrachatis AD, Alpert MA, Georgulas VP, Nikas DJ, Petropoulou EN, Lazaros GI, et al. Comparative efficacy of primary angioplasty with stent implantation and thrombolysis in restoring basal coronary artery flow in acute ST segment elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative assessment using the corrected TIMI frame count. Angiology 2001;52:161–6. 89. Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Migliorini A, Moschi G, Trapani M, Buonamici P, et al. Relation of time to treatment and mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89:1248–52. 90. Qasim A, Malpass K, O’Gorman DJ, Heber ME. Safety and efficacy of nurse initiated thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction. BMJ 2002;324:1328–31. 91. Rawles J, Sinclair C, Jennings K, Ritchie L, Waugh N. Call to needle times after acute myocardial infarction in urban and rural areas in northeast Scotland: prospective observational study. BMJ 1998;317:576–8. 92. Mullner M, Paulis M, Nikfardjam M, Domanovits H, Huber K. Primary PTCA versus thrombolysis with tPA in acute myocardial infarction: a formal cost-effectiveness analysis. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1999;111:37–41. 93. Zijlstra F, Hoorntje JC, de Boer MJ, Reiffers S, Miedema K, Ottervanger JP, et al. Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1413–19. 94. Stone GW, Grines CL, Rothbaum D, Browne KF, O’Keefe J, Overlie PA, et al., PAMI Trial Investigators, Analysis of the relative costs and effectiveness of primary angioplasty versus tissuetype plasminogen activator: the Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction (PAMI) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:901–7. 95. Lieu TA, Gurley RJ, Lundstrom RJ, Ray GT, Fireman BH, Weinstein MC, et al. Projected costeffectiveness of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30:1741–50. 96. Talley JD. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus thrombolysis: the ongoing debate. J Ark Med Soc 1998;95:191–6. 97. Lee JS. A comparison of thrombolytic therapy with primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1997;336:1103. 98. Joon SL, Fath OF, Beatt KJ, Every NR, Weaver WD. A comparison of thrombolytic therapy with primary coronary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (2) [multiple letters]. New Engl J Med 1997;336:1103–4. 99. Le May MR, Labinaz M, Davies RF, Marquis JF, Laramee LA, O’Brien ER, et al. Stenting versus thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction trial (STAT). J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37:985–91. 100. Parmley WW. Cost-effectiveness of reperfusion strategies. Am Heart J 1999;138:S142–52. 101. Topol EJ. Thrombolytic or angioplasty therapy of evolving myocardial infarction? J Thromb Thrombolysis 1998;5:S125–31. 102. Lee JS, Bailey MJ, Jeong J, Maudlin PD, Weintrub WS. A study on the cost-effectiveness of coronary revascularization: introducing the Simultaneous Mimic Health Status Model. Health Econ 1997;6:613–23. 103. Steg PG, Seknadji P. Primary PTCA: possibly the best, often the only choice for reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction. J Thromb Thrombolysis 1997; 4:331–6. 104. Sagmeister M, Amann FW, Follath F. [Costeffectiveness of primary PTCA and thrombolysis in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 2000;130:1146–51. 105. Amit G, Weiss AT, Zahger D. Coronary angioplasty or intravenous thrombolysis: the dilemma of optimal reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction: a critical review of the literature. J Thromb Thrombolysis 1999;8:113–21. 106. Boersma E, Steyerberg EW, Van der Vlugt MJ, Simoons ML. Reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Which strategy for which patient? Drugs 1998;56:31–48. 107. Brodie BR. Cost-effectiveness of primary PTCA versus thrombolysis. J Invasive Cardiol 1998; 10 Suppl A:11–5A. 108. Solomon NA, Glick HA, Russo CJ, Lee J, Schulman KA. Patient preferences for stroke outcomes. Stroke 1994;25:1721–5. 109. Schweiger MJ, Cannon CP, Murphy SA, Gibson CM, Cook JR, Giugliano RP, et al. Early coronary intervention following pharmacologic therapy for acute myocardial infarction (the combined TIMI 10B–TIMI 14 experience). Am J Cardiol 2001;88:831–6. 110. McKenzie L, Vale L, Mahy I. Is primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty a more cost effective treatment for acute myocardial infarction than thrombolysis? HERU Discussion Paper No. 05/01. 2002. 111. Ryan T, Antman E, Brooks N, Califf R, Hillis L, Hiratzka L, et al. 1999 update: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999;34:912–48. 112. Anon. Fifth report on the provision of services for patients with heart disease. Heart 2002;88:iii,1–56. 113. Andersen H, Nielsen T, Rasmussen K, Thuesen L, Kelbaek H, Thayssen P, et al. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:733–42. 114. George CJ, Baim DS, Brinker JA, Fischman DL, Goldberg S, Holubkov R, et al. One year follow-up of the stent restenosis (STRESS 1) study. Am J Cardiol 1988;81:860–5. 115. Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemenji F, Macaya C, Rutchs W, Hendrickx HG, et al. A comparison of balloon expandable stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1994;331:489–95. 116. Henriques JPS, Haasdijk AP, Zijlstra F, Zwolle Myocardial Infarction Study Group. Outcome of primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction during routine duty hours versus during off-hours. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:2138–42. 117. Veen G, de Boer MJ, Zijlstra F, Verheugt FW. Improvement in three-month angiographic outcome suggested after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction (Zwolle trial) compared with successful thrombolysis (APRICOT trial). Antithrombotics in the Prevention of Reocclusion In COronary Thrombolysis. Am J Cardiol 1999;84:763–7. 118. Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO IIb) Investigators. A comparison of recombinant hirudin with heparin for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 1996;335:775–82. 119. Birnbaum Y, Goodman S, Barr A, Gates KB, Barbash GI, Battler A, et al. Comparison of primary coronary angioplasty versus thrombolysis in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction and grade II and grade III myocardial ischemia on the enrollment electrocardiogram. Am J Cardiol 2001;88:842–7.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/52138

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item