 |
|
COMMENTS AND OPINIONS
Better Outcome of Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals With PCI Facilities—Is It Because of More PCIs?
Andrew T. Yan, MD;
Raymond T. Yan, MD;
Shaun G. Goodman, MD, MSc
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
We read with interest the study by Labarere et al1 that compared the treatment and outcome of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) admitted to hospitals with vs without PCI facilities. We would like to offer an alternative explanation for the observed difference in outcome.
Although Labarere and colleagues1 suggested that the more frequent use of PCI within 48 hours of hospitalization accounted for the improved 1-year survival among patients admitted to PCI hospitals (Table 6 of their article), it should be emphasized that the overall rate of reperfusion therapy (primary PCI or thrombolytic) was also substantially higher (58% vs 40%) compared with non-PCI hospitals. Of note, neither facilitated PCI nor early routine invasive management conferred a mortality benefit in the ASSENT-4 PCI (Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Treatment Strategy With Percutaneous . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
RELATED LETTER
Better Outcome of Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals With PCI Facilities—Is It Because of More PCIs?—Reply
Jose Labarere, Loic Belle, and Nicolas Danchin
Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(2):240-241.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Outcomes of Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Facilities
Jose Labarere, Loic Belle, Magali Fourny, Nathalie Genès, Jean-Marc Lablanche, Didier Blanchard, Jean-Pierre Cambou, Nicolas Danchin, and for the Unité de Soins Intensifs Coronaires 2000 Investigators
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(9):913-920.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
