Pharmacological treatment during AMI and in secondary prevention: the scientific evidence
| STUDY | PROCEDURE | No. PATIENTS | FOLLOW-UP | VAR. | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAMI (1993) [37] | PTCAvs tPA | 395 | In hosp. stay PTCA 7.5 tPA 8.4 |
-60.0% | 0.06 |
| Zwolle Trial (Zijlstra et al.) (1993) [103] | PTCA vs SK | 301 | In hosp. stay PTCA 12 SK 13.5 |
-71.0% | 0.003 |
| MITI Project Registry (1996) [25] |
PTCA vs THROMB. | 1,272 2,664 |
30 DAYS | -1.7% | 0.93 |
| GUSTO IIb (1997) [37] | PTCA vs tPA | 1,138 | 30 DAYS | -20.0% | 0.37 |
| Garcia et al. 1999 [27] | PTCA vstPA | 220 | 6 months | -60 | 0.05 |
| META-ANALYSES | No. STUDIES | No. PATIENTS | FOLLOW-UP | VAR. | P |
| MICHELS (1995) [62] (PTCA vs Thromb) |
7 | 1,145 | 6 WEEKS | -44.0% | <0.05 |
ACC/AHA GUIDELINES
|
ANMCO-SIC CLINICAL GUIDELINESIn centres with considerable experience in PTCA and with the possibility of a staff able to do it quickly (in less than 1 hour) and who is available 24hrs a day, PTCA as a first choice has considerable advantages, especially in patients with contraindications for thrombolysis, or with extensive infarct or AMI with LV failure. |