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 342:890-892 March 23, 2000 Number 12 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

To the Editor: In the November 4 issue, Zijlstra et al.¹ report a better long-term outcome after primary angioplasty than after thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Should the debate about the relative merits of angioplasty and thrombolytic therapy now be closed, as Faxon and Heger suggest in the accompanying editorial?² We do not think so, since the discussion to date has focused on in-hospital thrombolysis, and the role of prehospital thrombolysis has been underestimated.

The time from the onset of symptoms to the initiation of treatment is a major determinant of the outcome after thrombolytic therapy.³ The delay . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• van 't Hof, A. W.J., van de Wetering, H., Ernst, N., Hollak, F., de Pooter, F., Suryapranata, H., Hoorntje, J. C.A., Dambrink, J.-H. E., Gosselink, M., Zijlstra, F., de Boer, M.-J., on behalf of the On-TIME study group, (2005). A quantitative analysis of the benefits of pre-hospital infarct angioplasty triage on outcome in patients undergoing primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J Suppl 7: K36-K40 [Abstract] [Full Text]