FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 341:1464-1465 November 4, 1999 Number 19 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited Related Article by Zijlstra, F. PubMed Citation

The role of mechanical reperfusion as compared with thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction has remained controversial since Rentrop et al.¹ first reestablished perfusion in patients with myocardial infarction by dislodging the occluding coronary thrombus with a guide wire. Since then, considerable evidence has shown that thrombolytic agents are effective in restoring blood flow, improving left ventricular function, and reducing mortality from acute myocardial infarction. Primary treatment with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty has been shown to have similar benefits, and controversy continues over what method is more effective.

Those who favor thrombolytic therapy emphasize its advantages over . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• (1999). Angioplasty vs. Thrombolysis in Acute MI: Long-Term Outcomes. JWatch General 1999: 1-1 [Full Text]