Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on February 15, 2005
European Heart Journal 2005 26(6):529-531; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehi126
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/6/529    most recent
ehi126v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in EHJ
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Danchin, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Danchin, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2005. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Percutaneous coronary intervention following intravenous fibrinolytic therapy: should it be a must?

Nicolas Danchin*

Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France

* Corresponding author. Tel: +33 156 09 37 14; fax: +33 156 09 25 72. E-mail address: nicolas.danchin@egp.ap-hop-paris.fr

This editorial refers to ‘Percutaneous coronary intervention and 1 year survival in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction’{dagger} by A.J.J. McClelland et al., on page 544

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Of the two methods of reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction, primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is more difficult to implement but offers the best results when performed in an optimal setting.1 Although intravenous fibrinolytic therapy is easier to use, it has a lesser capacity to open the culprit artery and therefore is less likely to ensure adequate reperfusion of the jeopardized myocardium; in addition, even in the case where the artery can be reopened, the result achieved with fibrinolysis appears less ‘stable’ than that achieved with primary PCI and exposes the patient to a risk of re-infarction.1 Combining fibrinolysis with early PCI might offer a unique opportunity to associate the practicability of an easily available intravenous treatment with the capacity of PCI to either reopen persistently occluded arteries or maintain an optimal patency of arteries already reopened by the . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in EHJ:

Percutaneous coronary intervention and 1 year survival in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction
Anthony J.J. McClelland, Colum G. Owens, Simon J. Walsh, David McCarty, Thomas Mathew, Mike Stevenson, Helen Gracey, Mazhar M. Khan, and A.A. Jennifer Adgey
EHJ 2005 26: 544-548. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
F. Osman, S. Qaisar, and N. El Gaylani
Limitations of the study evaluating fibrinolytic therapy and in-hospital PCI for ST-elevation myocardial infarction
Eur. Heart J., August 2, 2005; 26(16): 1684 - 1684.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
A.A. J. Adgey and A. J.J. McClelland
Percutaneous coronary intervention and 1-year survival in patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: reply
Eur. Heart J., August 2, 2005; 26(16): 1684 - 1685.
[Full Text] [PDF]