4.5 Article

The Strategic Reperfusion Early After Myocardial Infarction (STREAM) study

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 160, 期 1, 页码 30-U49

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.04.007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as the preferred therapy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) provided it is performed in a timely fashion at an expert 24/7 facility. Fibrinolysis is a well-accepted alternative, especially in patients presenting early after symptom onset. The STREAM study will provide novel information on whether prompt fibrinolysis at first medical contact, followed by timely catheterization or rescue coronary intervention in STEMI patients presenting within 3 hours of symptom onset, represents an appropriate alternative strategy to primary PCI. Methods Acute STEMI patients presenting early after symptom onset are eligible if PCI is not feasible within 60 minutes of first medical contact. This is an open-label, prospective, randomized, parallel, comparative, international multicenter trial. Patients are randomized to fibrinolysis combined with enoxaparin, clopidogrel, and aspirin, and cardiac catheterization within 6 to 24 hours or rescue coronary intervention if reperfusion fails within 90 minutes of fibrinolysis versus PCI performed according to local guidelines. Composite efficacy end points at 30 days include death, shock, heart failure, and reinfarction. Safety end points include ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and major nonintracranial bleeding. Follow-up is extended to 1 year and includes all-cause mortality. Discussion Continuing delays in achieving timely PCI remain a difficult issue. Many patients fail to achieve the desired reperfusion times of 90 to 120 minutes after first medical contact. The STREAM results will provide useful additional data on which to base informed therapeutic decisions. (Am Heart J 2010; 160: 30-35.e1.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据