European Heart Journal Advance Access published online on July 25, 2006
European Heart Journal, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl174
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universität, Lazarettstr. 36, Munich, Germany; 1. Medizinische Klinik rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, Munich, Germany
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. 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.
Received March 6, 2006
Revised May 14, 2006
Accepted July 6, 2006
Current opinion
Late myocardial salvage: time to recognize its reality in the reperfusion therapy of acute myocardial infarction
Albert Schömig 1 *, Gjin Ndrepepa 1, and Adnan Kastrati 1
Albert Schömig, E-mail: aschoemig{at}dhm.mhn.de
Abstract
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Busk, A. Kaltoft, S. S. Nielsen, M. Bottcher, M. Rehling, L. Thuesen, H. E. Botker, J. F. Lassen, E. H. Christiansen, L. R. Krusell, et al. Infarct size and myocardial salvage after primary angioplasty in patients presenting with symptoms for <12 h vs. 12-72 h Eur. Heart J., June 1, 2009; 30(11): 1322 - 1330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|