Not so long ago, therapies that led to a survival advantagein randomized trials were quickly endorsed and adopted. Thecosts required to achieve the clinical benefit were of onlyminimal interest to the primary decision makers physiciansseeking the best outcomes for their patients. And in that erathere would have been little controversy over whether tissueplasminogen activator (t-PA) is a more effective thrombolyticagent than intravenous streptokinase. Laboratory and clinicalstudies show that t-PA opens coronary arteries occluded by thrombusmore rapidly than streptokinase,1 and the Global Utilizationof Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded. . . [Full Text of this Article]
Willerson, J. T.
(2003). Myocardial Revascularization with Cardiologic Interventional Devices. Card Surg Adult
2: 561-580
[Full Text]
O'Brien, B. J., Heyland, D., Richardson, W. S., Levine, M., Drummond, M. F., for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group,
(1997). Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XIII. How to Use an Article on Economic Analysis of Clinical Practice B. What Are the Results and Will They Help Me in Caring for My Patients?. JAMA
277: 1802-1806
[Abstract]
Rose, E. A., Armentano, R., Favaloro, R. G., Mark, D. B.
(1995). Is the Use of t-PA as Compared with Streptokinase Cost Effective?. NEJM
333: 1009-1010
[Full Text]