Skip Navigation


European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on July 25, 2006
European Heart Journal 2006 27(16):1900-1907; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl174
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
27/16/1900    most recent
ehl174v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
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 (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schömig, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kastrati, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schömig, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kastrati, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Late myocardial salvage: time to recognize its reality in the reperfusion therapy of acute myocardial infarction

Albert Schömig1,2,*, Gjin Ndrepepa1,2 and Adnan Kastrati1,2

1 Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universität, Lazarettstr. 36, Munich, Germany
2 1. Medizinische Klinik rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, Munich, Germany

Received 6 March 2006; revised 14 May 2006; accepted 6 July 2006; online publish-ahead-of-print 25 July 2006.

* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 89 12184073; fax: +49 89 12184013.E-mail address: aschoemig{at}dhm.mhn.de

Abstract

The prevailing opinion in the reperfusion therapy of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is that the benefit of reperfusion is mostly confined to the first 12 h after the symptom onset. This opinion is based on the results of the prior megatrials of thrombolytic therapy and the experimental studies. Thrombolytic studies have unequivocally proven that the efficacy of thrombolysis to salvage ischaemic myocardium is drastically reduced with the increase in the time-to-treatment interval. A relatively large number of patients present beyond the limit efficacy of thrombolysis and are considered ineligible for this reperfusion modality. Recent experimental and clinical evidence indicates that a large amount of viable myocardium is still present in the area at risk in patients with AMI presenting late after symptom onset and considered ineligible for thrombolysis. In this review, we summarized the existing data demonstrating that this viable myocardium is salvageable given the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used as a reperfusion therapy. By emphasizing this fact, we do not mean to contest the concept of time dependence of myocardial necrosis following coronary occlusion and time dependence of efficacy of interventions performed early (within 2–3 h) after symptom onset or to dissuade the early coronary interventions in patients with AMI. Instead, we strongly recommend the primary PCI in patients with AMI presenting late after onset of myocardial ischaemia.

Key Words: Acute myocardial infarction • Myocardial salvage • Primary percutaneous coronary intervention • Thrombolysis


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Emerg. Med. J.Home page
N R Castle, R C Owen, and M Hann
Is there still a place for emergency department thrombolysis following the introduction of the amended Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee criteria for thrombolysis?
Emerg. Med. J., December 1, 2007; 24(12): 843 - 845.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
B. K. Nallamothu, E. H. Bradley, and H. M. Krumholz
Time to Treatment in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
N. Engl. J. Med., October 18, 2007; 357(16): 1631 - 1638.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.